tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9142734742199070752024-02-29T00:52:32.904-08:00What On Earth?Political and religious viewpoints that often run counter to our liberal mainstream media.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9532125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-74440731680767443632014-01-27T21:13:00.001-08:002014-01-27T21:15:42.168-08:00The Unitary Executive becomes a singularity<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCCpzfEk5FiJ-Vam0Ca1jOrekIVPCSMADv3hlzcnR3SMtCm4KSJi8ZX7x8H2RO3n2jVBSEJy4O82aYbDS_84kR5zo1eONHwNfFb6bq2blnj3YSfagXV0IZbJ_JjCWVpSqfOCLRjiNwo-A/s1600/1546114_10151905679557596_2058856078_n%5B1%5D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCCpzfEk5FiJ-Vam0Ca1jOrekIVPCSMADv3hlzcnR3SMtCm4KSJi8ZX7x8H2RO3n2jVBSEJy4O82aYbDS_84kR5zo1eONHwNfFb6bq2blnj3YSfagXV0IZbJ_JjCWVpSqfOCLRjiNwo-A/s1600/1546114_10151905679557596_2058856078_n%5B1%5D.jpg" height="198" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<strong>The Unitary Executive becomes a singularity</strong><br />
<strong>John Hayward 1-27-2014</strong><br />
<br />
Nothing about President Obama’s upcoming State of the Union address is a surprise. Of <em>course </em>he’s going to push the phony issue of “income inequality” as a massive distraction from the failures of ObamaCare, his domestic economic policies, his foreign policy, and all the rest of it. Of <em>course </em>he’s going to double down on the use of dictatorial powers to neutralize Congress and upset the Constitutional balance of power. If the day ever comes that a president uses this political ritual to say “I screwed up, I’m sorry I was wrong, and I apologize for savagely attacking the people who were right all along,” it will not be Barack Obama.<br />
<br />
The status of the Union will never be downgraded from “strong” in the first paragraph of one of these speeches, no matter how badly the country is doing. The subsequent paragraphs – about a thousand of them, if previous Obama speeches serve as any guide – will always be devoted to explaining “the challenges that remain,” and why the guy with low approval ratings parked behind the podium should be given even more power and money to address them.<br />
<br />
This is not unique to Obama’s agenda or political style. No chief executive can afford to shut the coffin lid on the first year of his second term by declaring himself chastised and penitent. Lame ducks do not waddle around Washington inviting everyone to sign the cast that will cover their broken legs for the next three years. The president is also the titular head of his party. The party needs to be motivated and energized, at least for a couple of days. Liberal presidents have a very easy formula for doing that: announce a hugely expensive agenda packed with wish-list goodies, talk about the cruelty and greed of everyone who opposes it, and let the editorial-page battles begin. If nothing else, Obama will be able to count on plenty of ink from even his more disenchanted media supporters about his boundless compassion and good intentions. That counts for a lot, when you’re trying to trick three hundred million people into forgetting that you grabbed a trillion dollars of their money and used it to destroy health care.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;">It’s also easy to rack up a few political points by running against a perpetually unpopular Congress. The big political lesson to be drawn from Shutdown Theater is that the public may not like or trust Big Government – the horrendously incompetent launch of ObamaCare has driven public faith in the State and our political system to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-finds-little-faith-in-nations-leaders/2014/01/25/a94d69c4-8534-11e3-9dd4-e7278db80d86_story.html?hpid=z3">remarkable lows</a> – but they grow very angry when they think the political machinery they distrust has seized up entirely. For all of this new skepticism, the public still expects government to <em>function.</em> Obama will attempt to reformulate this desire into support for an activist agenda. If people want government to function, that means they want it to Do Something. The President will present a long list of things he wants to do, while equating resistance to his agenda with that hellish shutdown-happy gridlock.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13px;"></span><br />
What makes this State of the Union address so disturbing, as its outlines emerge, is Obama’s plan to turn his already unitary office into a singularity. According to the <em>Washington Post, </em>his team thinks he hasn’t been arrogant or dictatorial <em>enough:</em><br />
<em></em><br />
Senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer outlined the lessons learned in a three-page memo that Obama discussed with his Cabinet in recent weeks, according to several administration officials who have read the document.<br />
<br />
Among its conclusions is that Obama, a former state legislator and U.S. senator, too often governed more like a prime minister than a president. In a parliamentary system, a prime minister is elected by lawmakers and thus beholden to them in ways a president is not.<br />
<br />
As a result, Washington veterans have been brought into the West Wing to emphasize an executive style of governing that aims to sidestep Congress more often. A central ambition of Obama’s presidency — to change the way Washington works — has effectively been discarded as a distraction in a time of hardening partisanship.<br />
<br />
Even <em>Democrats </em>on Capitol Hill have quietly grumbled that Obama doesn’t work with them closely enough. Obviously, Republicans are even less happy with the “unitary executive” approach, which is something liberals spent many years loudly complaining about, until abruptly and universally falling silent in 2009 for some reason.<br />
<br />
The American president may not be “beholden” to lawmakers, <strong>but he still isn’t one.</strong> There is a separation of powers between the executive branch and the legislature, which Obama has worked for years to erase, with a frightening degree of success – abetted by congressional Democrats who made a political calculation to surrender the powers of Congress to their Party leader, confident in the knowledge they can almost instantly take them back if they find themselves opposing a Republican president in 2017. You won’t <em>believe </em>how obsessed the media becomes with the prerogatives of Congress, the separation of powers, and the correct procedure for amending laws, ten minutes after a Republican president is sworn in. If Democrats don’t hold both houses of Congress on that day, you’ll also suddenly hear a great deal about respect for the minority, and the filibuster will one again become the bright blazing torch held aloft in Lady Liberty’s steady hand, instead of a dusty old relic of political arcana that serves only as a foolish obstacle to Progress.<br />
<br />
Obama’s model of the unitary executive – imposing his rule by executive order, modifying legislation as he sees fit, turning Congress into a rubber-stamp legislature and reducing the opposition party to a debating society with an exceptionally strict dress code – is an offense against the people of the United States, not just elected representatives in Washington. It represents the wholesale transfer of power into the hands of someone you’ll never get to vote against, someone who cannot be punished or restrained with anything short of an impeachment Armageddon.<br />
<br />
The old chestnut holds that Congress is always unpopular, but every state and district basically supports its own representatives; the other 49 states, and the knuckleheads they vote for, are the problem. The reality behind that amusing dichotomy is that members of Congress are more accountable to voters. They go through tough legislative battles that leave scars upon their popularity. The messy legislative procedures that drag congressional approval down are also a mechanism that protects our liberties, That mechanism looks a bit rusty and unappealing these days, but you’ll hate what happens when it stops working altogether.<br />
<br />
One of the intractable problems with our centralized government is its <em>arrogance.</em> Everything from its misbegotten programs to their bumbling execution can be traced to the arrogant conviction that Washington knows best, and the main reason its plans have not secured Utopia is the stubborn intransigence of dissenters. Appearing on CBS’ “<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-bob-schieffers-interview-with-texas-senator-ted-cruz/">Meet the Press</a>” Sunday, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) told Bob Schieffer that Obama should use the SOTU to deliver the kind of humble apology he knows we’ll never get:<br />
<br />
And, you know, for the State of the Union, one of the things President Obama really oughta do is look in the TV camera and say to the over five million Americans all across this country who’ve had their health insurance canceled because of ObamaCare, to look in the camera and say, “I’m sorry. I told you if you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it.<br />
<br />
“I told you if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. And that wasn’t true. I’m sorry.” But then, Bob, here’s the real kicker. If you’re really sorry, you don’t just say you’re sorry. You actually do something to fix the problem. The pattern we’ve seen over and over again with this president is he says he’s sorry and he expresses outrage but then he doesn’t fix the problem. He keeps doing it over and over again.<br />
<br />
Do you think any corporate CEO enjoys admitting he made a hideous mistake that alienated consumers and cost his company a bundle? Of course not. They do it <em>because they have to.</em> They discontinue failed programs, sack their architects, and grovel before customers because their survival depends on it. Obama’s survival does not. He’ll get more mileage out of firing up his supporters and de-legitimizing his critics. He sits at the head of a gigantic system that believes it can never run out of money, will never be prosecuted for fraud, and cannot lose its “customers” to competitors.<br />
<br />
Obama, and those of like mind, are driven by the evangelical conviction that his system’s only flaw is that it’s not big enough. There is still too much room for what he thinks of as intransigence, but others call liberty. You are still allowed to make too many mistakes. Even within the realm of State control, you’re still allowed to cast too many unwise votes; your representatives have too much to say about the course our unitary executive charts for the nation. It’s so much more <em>efficient </em>to have one person calling all the shots, don’t you think? Then we’d have no “gridlock” at all.<br />
_________________________________________<br />
<br />
<strong>To read another article by John Hayward, <em><a href="http://bcfoley.blogspot.com/2013/12/pandemonium-obama-partially-waives.html">click here.</a></em></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-53111672984263668502014-01-18T20:31:00.002-08:002014-01-18T20:41:13.766-08:00Teaching to the Ten<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSyYlCe6BOOZt1GgwjqgzGKy5c95gHDsYgBhCU5MBjBiOPmuC2rA2bK4246eqasdfReR2lxqbd9KO-UfVs0UNO1JP4nUeKCyGCPIUWvkmw3pJP5LPuB1ZHPHRiG5lBLDRVtKQKuI0u3QQ/s1600/1-15-14+3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSyYlCe6BOOZt1GgwjqgzGKy5c95gHDsYgBhCU5MBjBiOPmuC2rA2bK4246eqasdfReR2lxqbd9KO-UfVs0UNO1JP4nUeKCyGCPIUWvkmw3pJP5LPuB1ZHPHRiG5lBLDRVtKQKuI0u3QQ/s1600/1-15-14+3.jpg" height="320" width="256" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<strong>Teaching to the Ten</strong> <br />
1/15/2014 12:01:00 AM - Mike Adams<br />
<br />
<div class="article-ad-pull-left pull-left">
<div id="div-gpt-1399486469-0">
</div>
</div>
Dear CRM 381 Students: Welcome back! I just wanted to write and let you know that the syllabus is up and running on the departmental web page. I have been instructed to direct you to the link rather than distribute individual copies. The university needs to save money on paper so the LGBTQIA Office can continue to offer orgasm awareness seminars and so the Women's Resource Center can continue to promote abortion. Remember kids, the more trees we save, the more babies we can kill! <br />
<br />
In addition to going over the syllabus on day one, I plan to introduce each one of you to my somewhat informal teaching philosophy. Actually, this will be the first time I ever make a statement of teaching philosophy, despite the fact that it is my twenty-first year to teach here at UNC-Wilmington. In a nutshell, that philosophy can be summarized in the phrase "twenty-seventy-ten." I'll explain it briefly, although I do plan to elaborate in class on Monday.<br />
<br />
Despite what Karl Marx says, there really are not just two kinds of people in this world. That's an oversimplification, although there are two types of communists - a) the ones who live off their more productive comrades and b) the dead ones. But when it comes to students, there are at least three distinct groups. They follow in order from the least pleasant to the most pleasant among you. <br />
<br />
1. The Tweeny Twenty. <br />
<br />
2. The Sagacious Seventy. <br />
<br />
3. The Tenacious Ten. <br />
<br />
The first group, the Tweeny Twenty, derives its name from its character and its proportions. This is the group of students who, as the name implies, are woefully immature, to almost preadolescent proportions. Fortunately, they are only a minority - about twenty percent of the student population.<br />
<br />
The Tweeny Twenty somehow managed to get out of high school without having even a vague sense of what they want to accomplish in life. But they are able to go to college for a few years to explore their options because a) anyone can get into college these days, and b) anyone can get a government-backed loan to help pay for college these days. And so they go. What else is there to do?<br />
<br />
Having no clue what they are doing in college, they behave as clueless individuals do. They come and go from class as they please - arriving late and leaving early. They dress inappropriately as if they are coming from a bar or are heading to the beach. In short, they come to college for social reasons. To party. To meet a spouse. Or maybe to meet a "connection" or someone who will "hook them up" with a job upon graduation.<br />
<br />
I will do everything within my ability to drive these people out of the classroom before the drop date. That is my sincere promise to the other eighty percent of you.<br />
<br />
The second group, the Sagacious Seventy, also derives its name from its character and its proportions. This is the group of students who, as the name implies, are shrewder and more goal-oriented than the Tweeny Twenty. Fortunately - I only say "fortunately" because they are fairly well behaved and manageable - they are about seventy percent of the student population.<br />
<br />
Having some clue of what they are doing in college, they behave as rational individuals. They come to class pretty regularly and go through the motions in order to get their course credit. They have calculated that having a degree is better than not having a degree and that the amount they pay in student loans will be exceeded by the salary increase that accompanies having a college degree. Of course, many of these students have miscalculated and will never pay off their loans but that is another issue to be explored at a later date.<br />
<br />
In short, these students come to college to get credentialed. They know that employers want to see an applicant’s degree because that means they had the stick-to-it-ness to set a goal and follow through. They also know that it doesn't require much work to get their expensive degree so they divert study time toward work time. They take a part time job in order to keep their student loans down even if this means turning in sub-par work. They know their professors have come to expect sub-par work. Like most of our students, they are intelligent and keenly self-interested. They do the cost-benefit analysis and make a reasonable decision in a difficult situation that is becoming more difficult as college becomes more expensive.<br />
<br />
I will do everything within my ability to threaten these people into doing work that is only slightly sub-par, instead of clearly deficient. I know they are used to being given good grades for work that is clearly deficient. But I also know that they cannot risk failing my class. So I will threaten them and hopefully (through fear) motivate them to soar towards mediocrity in their academic work output. It's really the best I can hope for in an age of hyper-inflated hire (misspelling intentional) education.<br />
<br />
The last group, the Tenacious Ten, also derives its name from its character and its proportions. This is the group of students who, as the name implies, are highly determined and persistent and cannot easily be distracted from their goals. Unfortunately, they are only about ten percent of the student population.<br />
<br />
The Tenacious Ten may well have good genes. I don't know for sure. But I do know that they usually had good parents who taught them good life lessons. Also, more than likely, they had good counselors in their schools or in the churches. And so they are focused and ready from day one.<br />
<br />
In short, the Tenacious Ten are here because they desire specific knowledge that will help them attain a specific goal. As a result, they have an intrinsic appreciation of the material I plan to teach throughout the semester. So there is no need to threaten or cajole or manipulate them into performing at expected levels. They just do it because they come to college having already gotten into the habit of doing it on their own.<br />
<br />
This message is just my way of reminding you that when I talk about “our” class I am not talking about all thirty of you. I am talking to about three of you - those who constitute the Tenacious Ten percent. You are the only reason I am still teaching. I look forward to finding out who you are. I don't suspect it will take very long to identify you.<br />
<br />
I hope this message finds you well. If you are in the Tweeny Twenty, I hope it scares the hell out of you – so much so that you drop the course. Otherwise, I will see you in class on Monday. <br />
_______________________________________________<br />
<br />
<strong>To read another article by Mike Adams, <em><a href="http://bcfoley.blogspot.com/2013/12/center-for-study-of-individual-rights.html">click here.</a></em></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-74299600147350022382014-01-18T20:20:00.001-08:002014-01-18T20:23:39.467-08:00Excerpt from My 'Thoughts For The Day' Post<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKooTHBFfUa6sDUuLQMBBIDmIpYN6PBrOiGIDzSx1ueIL3HA6EDaH0oJeQcWMQEOP4JNiSOuy3YiGgdmLvKukrRg64LcdnSlqqnzq8hFDfVaDNQY3zrz99_u0BnFvoG278uHdZZ84ZoJg/s1600/1-18-14+13.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKooTHBFfUa6sDUuLQMBBIDmIpYN6PBrOiGIDzSx1ueIL3HA6EDaH0oJeQcWMQEOP4JNiSOuy3YiGgdmLvKukrRg64LcdnSlqqnzq8hFDfVaDNQY3zrz99_u0BnFvoG278uHdZZ84ZoJg/s1600/1-18-14+13.jpg" height="212" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<strong>Excerpt from My 'Thoughts For The Day' Post</strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
<strong><a href="http://bclabjfoley.blogspot.com/2013/06/thoughts-for-day-thoughts-for-day-today.html">The whole post can be viewed here.</a></strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
<strong>1-18-2014 –</strong> <strong>Allow me to attempt to give you a little insight about why I hate it when people try to ram something down my throat. This is about Greg,</strong> whom I worked with in 1988 back when I worked for our local Parks Department. My job back then was a seasonal job, where I opened and closed and took care of the parks in the Cedar Hills area of our town. I didn’t do this job by myself; I usually had one or two people who helped me. I was unofficially their boss, but we would work as a team of equals and just do what needed to be done each day. Around this time I had been out of the regular U.S. Army for a few years, and I was in the local National Guard Unit part time (one weekend a month). This summer of 1988 I worked with Greg, who was several years younger than I was. Greg went to high school at Regis, which was a local Catholic high school from which I knew many people – so as a result we each knew many of the same people. I always got along good with Greg; he was a pleasant person who was interesting to talk with. He was also a good worker, which helped a lot.<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The reason I mention Greg is that he was gay, but he wasn’t ‘in your face’ about it. It was obvious mostly from his mannerisms, he was more feminine-like than masculine. I had worked with people who were openly gay before, and although I don’t understand their inclination, their gayness was never an issue with me. We didn’t talk a lot about his being gay, it was just understood, and he was comfortable with talking about it. I don’t think he lived a gay lifestyle openly, in other words I don’t think he lived with a boyfriend (at that time). Greg also had a sister who was gay, and he told me that his sister and he agreed that they weren’t born gay – it was more like a preference for them that was directly at odds with their Catholic religion. I told Greg that I knew several people (mostly in the service), who considered themselves to have switched from being straight to being gay, and vice versa. He believed me, and definitely believed that was possible. I often wonder if he still believes this to be true, because nowadays we are told that gays were born that way, and when we disagree, we are called a ‘homophobe’ or ‘bigot’ or ‘hater.’ In other words, most gays want it to be understood by everybody that it is normal behavior and they are just being who they are – they can’t help or change who they are. I know they are wrong. I have seen for myself that ‘gayness’ is not an identity, but a behavior that you choose. You may (or may not) be predisposed to this behavior, but a behavior it is. We can choose our behavior as humans. We can choose to be good or evil, or somewhere in-between. We can choose to be a murderer, or a thief, or we can choose to be a Christian who believes Jesus Christ is our savoir, who died on the cross for the sins of mankind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<strong><a href="http://bclabjfoley.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-gay-marriage-bullies.html">Unfortunately many gays have become militant</a> and try to tell the rest of us what we must believe, and because their views of who they are conflict with the Bible’s teachings, they want to destroy the Bible and Christians, or convince people to marginalize the Bible’s teachings.</strong> This is just another way of saying they are trying to destroy their souls.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a conflict that is happening now, and it’s getting mean. Democrats are on the side of the Gay Agenda, and have become anti-Christian (not all gays and Democrats, but a significant number of them). Many other Democrats are duped by the mainstream media’s narrative, which is aligned with the Gay Agenda. This is part of what is to happen, and is happening in the end times. So directly gay = evil, and Democrat = evil because they are trying to drag you away from God (and in many cases – have succeeded). That is my belief, and much evidence backs me up.<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
It would be interesting to see how this has all affected Greg and others like him over time. I heard that his sister has passed away from AIDS. Most Democrats (and/or gays) would read this post and think I’m a bigot or homophobe, but that would just show me they don’t understand the meanings of these words. I’m making my judgments based on my life experiences. Here is a funny coincidence about Greg. His father was the head football coach at his high school, and had a reputation for being tough. Greg grew up being neighbors with my future wife Cheryl. One day Cheryl changed a flat tire on Greg’s car (because apparently he didn’t think he could do it), and Greg’s father came outside and saw this happening. <strong>He berated Greg mentally and physically for having a female change his flat tire for him.</strong> So Cheryl knew Greg as well.<br />
____________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<strong>To read the Gay Rights thread, <em><a href="http://bclabjfoley.blogspot.com/2011/02/gay-rights-articles.html">click here.</a></em></strong></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-69879716989545282142014-01-18T20:13:00.001-08:002014-01-18T20:16:09.442-08:00Obama Administration Mandates Racism in Schools<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguEIYNXykpCoLYVI7OqPWFqfEb-VjIeXqnQpQmvGDobcNG-sfIkH2y5eSXLyjmLDq8OekFiSBgqf5ijdyAR4ycv2oHsIzvLrlODEwqaF6vzC5-IYz8O0PhYpfViOp4IrD4vF0Rj9wdfxw/s1600/1-18-14+20.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguEIYNXykpCoLYVI7OqPWFqfEb-VjIeXqnQpQmvGDobcNG-sfIkH2y5eSXLyjmLDq8OekFiSBgqf5ijdyAR4ycv2oHsIzvLrlODEwqaF6vzC5-IYz8O0PhYpfViOp4IrD4vF0Rj9wdfxw/s1600/1-18-14+20.jpg" height="201" width="320" /></a></div>
<strong>Obama Administration Mandates Racism in Schools</strong> <br />
<h2>
1/17/2014 12:01:00 AM - Mona Charen</h2>
<div class="article-ad-pull-right pull-right">
<div id="div-gpt-1415411598-0">
</div>
</div>
The Departments of Education and Justice have teamed up to make the lives of students in tough neighborhoods even tougher. Framed as a measure to combat discrimination against black and Hispanic children, the guidelines issued by the Obama administration about school discipline will actually encourage racial discrimination, undermine the learning environments of classrooms and contribute to an unjust race-consciousness in meting out discipline. <br />
<br />
Claiming that African-American and Hispanic students are more harshly disciplined than whites for the same infractions, the Obama administration now advises that any disciplinary rule that results in a "disparate impact" on these groups will be challenged by the government. <br />
<br />
"Disparate impact" analysis, as we've seen in employment law, does not require any intentional discrimination. It means, for example, that if an employer asks job seekers to take a test, and a larger percentage of one ethnic group fails the test than another, that the test is de facto discriminatory because it has a "disparate impact." <br />
<br />
In the school context, the federal government is now arguing that if a disciplinary rule results in more black, Hispanic or special education kids being suspended or otherwise sanctioned, the rule must be suspect. The "Dear Colleague" letter explains that a disciplinary policy can be unlawful discrimination, even if the rule is "neutral on its face ... and is administered in an evenhanded manner," if it has a "disparate impact" on certain ethnic and other groups. <br />
<br />
The inclusion of special education students is particularly perverse, as special ed students frequently get that designation because their emotional disturbances cause them to misbehave in various ways. So if a rule against, say, knocking over desks, is found to be violated more frequently by special ed than regular ed students, then the rule must be questioned? That's circular. <br />
<br />
As the CATO Institute's Walter Olson notes, the federal guidelines pass over one example of disparate impact with no comment -- namely the dramatically more males than females who face disciplinary action nationwide. If we are to judge a rule's lawfulness by the disparate impact on males, no rule would survive the inquiry. Is it possible that more boys misbehave in the classroom than girls? To ask this question is to venture into an area the federal government would have us avoid. Actual infractions by individuals are not the issue. We must have group justice, not individual justice. <br />
<br />
We've actually been down this road many times before. Various state and federal agencies have raised concerns about the large numbers of black and Hispanic students facing disciplinary action. Such concerns helped to generate the rigid "zero tolerance" policies the administration now condemns. Zero tolerance is a brainless approach to a subject that requires considerable finesse and deliberation, but the disparate impact rule is even more pernicious. <br />
<br />
Under the new dispensation, teachers, principals and other officials will have to pause before they discipline, say, the fourth black student in a month. "How will this look to the feds?" they'll ask themselves. Will the student's family be able to sue us? A variety of solutions to the federally created problem will present themselves. School officials can search out offenses by white and Asian students to make the numbers come out right. Asian students are disciplined at rates far below any other ethnic group. Is this due to pro-Asian bias in our schools, or is it because Asians commit many fewer infractions? Oops, there we go into territory forbidden by the federal guidelines. <br />
<br />
Another solution will be to ignore misbehavior by blacks and Hispanics. For classes with large numbers of minority students, this guarantees that the learning environment for the kids who actually want to learn will be impaired as teachers -- reluctant to remove troublesome students -- expend precious time on kids who are rude, threatening, loud or otherwise disruptive. Every minute of the school day taken up by bad kids is taken away from good kids. It's a true zero-sum game. <br />
<br />
So the Obama administration's pursuit of group justice actually leads to injustice to individual students. Whites and Asians will be disciplined more than they merit it by their conduct, and fewer students of all groups will get the kind of classroom atmosphere that is conducive to learning. Even the students who get a pass on their bad conduct are disserved, as they will not have learned that disrespectful language, tardiness and even violence are unacceptable in society. <br />
<br />
Everyone loses. Obama strikes again. <br />
______________________________________________<br />
<br />
<strong>To read more about racism, <em><a href="http://bcfoley.blogspot.com/2012/03/5-reasons-that-shouting-racism-doesnt.html">click here.</a></em></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-21413893376820079772014-01-18T20:05:00.001-08:002014-01-18T20:08:03.180-08:00What Happened When North Carolina Slashed Unemployment Benefits? People Got Jobs…Weird<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLU2jZAN2Cp95lIIAxhjpP3iaH7IluqQm48wjznC3NrSbCx29mCgs3Apg5geGwZ4xMIBU-03lgJk7mW56TKRMTSKQitgIIa5ZejcCN7jzc7lxMBvJTkAHYbiz1fgTb6BW0y0fsx88mwmg/s1600/1-18-14+9.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLU2jZAN2Cp95lIIAxhjpP3iaH7IluqQm48wjznC3NrSbCx29mCgs3Apg5geGwZ4xMIBU-03lgJk7mW56TKRMTSKQitgIIa5ZejcCN7jzc7lxMBvJTkAHYbiz1fgTb6BW0y0fsx88mwmg/s1600/1-18-14+9.jpg" height="218" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<strong>What Happened When North Carolina Slashed Unemployment Benefits? People Got Jobs…Weird</strong> <br />
<h5>
1/17/2014 12:01:00 AM - Charlotte Hays</h5>
<div class="article-ad-pull-right pull-right">
<div id="div-gpt-1415411598-0">
</div>
</div>
A recent report on Market Watch—hardly a right-wing hangout—should be required reading for every Democrat who believes that extending “temporary” unemployment benefits is always the humane thing to do. <br />
<br />
An experiment in North Carolina indicates that—as is all too often the case—Democrats actually may be hurting the very people they claim to be helping in their quest, temporarily halted, to extend unemployment benefits. <br />
<br />
North Carolina, it seems, pressed for money and under the cruel sway of a Republican governor, resorted to drastic measures: slashing unemployment benefits and, as if that wasn’t draconian enough, cutting the number of weeks the unemployed could receive even these meager benefits. <br />
<br />
“Within several months, the unemployment rate fell a few ticks and by November it fell to a five-year low,” Market Watch reported. The jobless rates declined similarly, if less spectacularly, in Georgia and South Carolina, where benefits were also reduced in 2012. <br />
<br />
Market Watch was cautious not to conclude that the news from North Carolina is a vindication of critics of extending unemployment benefits. It noted that several states that did not cut benefits had also shown a decline in joblessness. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless the North Carolina experience deserves a look. What happened in North Carolina is even more relevant because the state was particularly hard hit during the Great Recession. In dire straits, North Carolina availed itself of federal loans to help pay for unemployment benefits, which lasted 26 weeks. <br />
<br />
When North Carolina ended up seriously in hock to the feds, Republican Governor Pat McCrory, who took office in 2013, faced a choice: raise taxes, a course of action McCrory maintained would harm businesses (which, after all, create jobs) or cut unemployment benefits. The brave governor cut benefits. <br />
<br />
The maximum weekly benefit was cut from the previous high of $535 to $350, a not insignificant reduction. The time people could collect benefits was cut from 26 weeks to only 12 or 20. But that was not the end of the cruelty. <br />
<br />
McCrory’s cuts imposed a further hardship on the unemployed: unemployed North Carolinians became ineligible for certain cash payments offered by the federal government, which requires states to pay a certain level of benefits to qualify for these payments. About 70,000 North Carolinians lost out on these payments. <br />
<br />
If the congressional Democrats (and a few wayward Republicans!) who supported extending the benefits were right, McCrory’s cuts should have ushered in a humanitarian crisis that made the Armageddon that ensued from the sequester mild. Oh, wait… <br />
<a href="http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/01/08/what-happens-when-jobless-benefits-are-cut-north-carolina-may-offer-clues/">Market Watch’s Jeffrey Bartash wrote:</a> <br />
<blockquote style="margin-left: 65px;">
North Carolina’s jobless rate rose a notch to 8.9% in July and then began a steady descent: 8.7% in August, 8.3% in September, 8.0% in October and a preliminary 7.4% in November, according to U.S. Labor Department figures. <br />
<br />
That’s the lowest rate since late 2008, though monthly numbers are prone to sharp revisions. </blockquote>
This data doesn’t tell us what happened to everybody who is no longer classified as unemployed. <br />
Market Watch speculated that some may have retired, ended up on welfare, or moved in with family. In other words, some of them may have gotten out of the work force, as many former workers across the nation have done, thus helping bring down the still dangerously high national employment rate. <br />
Still, while there may have been people who didn’t get jobs, it is undeniable that North Carolina's unemployment rate declined. It is unarguable that more people were working than before the cuts, thus reducing the pool of human suffering. <br />
<br />
The North Carolina success story should have been a rallying cry for Republicans when extending the benefits was debated on Capitol Hill. <br />
<br />
It is unfortunate that some chose instead to focus on how to “pay for” extending the benefits, as if extending these benefits is inherently good, if only you can find a way to afford them. <br />
<br />
They should instead have been willing to talk about the morality and utility of long-term unemployment benefits. As it happens, this is something about which I know a thing or two. <br />
In the 1990s, living in New York and tossed by a publisher who didn’t like my column (talk about cruel!), I found myself receiving unemployment insurance benefits. I have to confess that they offered me peace of mind, especially at first, when life was raw. <br />
<br />
I’ve written before about <a href="http://www.iwf.org/blog/2430982/My-Personal-Adventure-with-Unemployment-Benefits%20%20http://www.iwf.org/blog/2430982/My-Personal-Adventure-with-Unemployment-Benefits%20%20http://www.iwf.org/blog/2430982/My-Personal-Adventure-with-Unemployment-Benefits">my experience with unemployment benefits</a>. I should have headlined my saga “How I Lost My Benefits but Found a Job.” <br />
<br />
Yes, ladies and gentleman, this rock-rib right winger, advocate of pluck and grit and elbow grease had been dawdling in her job search. I didn’t really realize I was lackadaisical, though in retrospect I know that some of my ideas for employment were fantastical. I won’t tell you which intellectual journal I tried to sell on the idea of my doing a gossip column for them! <br />
<br />
But then the benefits were about to expire and the wolf is at the door: Mr. Wolf makes you lose your pickiness and take any job you can get. For me, it was a job I didn't really want but which turned out to be a long-term, life blessing. I am so glad I took it, but I might have spurned the offer if the benefits hadn’t stopped. <br />
<br />
I hope that the next time unemployment benefits come up in Washington—and believe me, the issue will come up again—the Republicans will remember North Carolina and make an argument that is both moral and utilitarian. We shouldn’t be trying to “pay for” a “benefit” that keeps people on the dole. <br />
_____________________________________________<br />
<br />
<strong>To read more about unemployment, <em><a href="http://bcfoley.blogspot.com/2013/12/gingrich-every-major-city-which-is.html">click here.</a></em></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-91592454140303068332014-01-18T19:33:00.001-08:002014-01-18T20:00:11.370-08:00Snapshot Comics<strong>Snapshot Comics.</strong><br />
<br />
<strong><em>The following comics were discovered and posted here as a representation of what's currently going on in this new year.</em></strong><br />
<strong><em></em></strong><br />
<strong><em>click on picture to enlarge...</em></strong><br />
<strong><em></em></strong><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzBP-Zmi5HrkOzkP-n7gy34UDQep0adVoQzdiuklgDDL3i_DdNmDgTz_kN8uWSSBZ4y0KctCMSieVGx6zqg4Gbwg-9iFuRoEujnw8c-v-kW0RxhRwlDQw-A871L0Gu7Bv_Zie2r1FBunU/s1600/1-11-14+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzBP-Zmi5HrkOzkP-n7gy34UDQep0adVoQzdiuklgDDL3i_DdNmDgTz_kN8uWSSBZ4y0KctCMSieVGx6zqg4Gbwg-9iFuRoEujnw8c-v-kW0RxhRwlDQw-A871L0Gu7Bv_Zie2r1FBunU/s1600/1-11-14+1.jpg" height="255" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqi3QOsAV6fJPq4BURi6WaZELVolHJasseAB4fBSOLOHV7Dg5r6Ty_nj8Y5ar4HmukOwdG2-hGMrxzNGNomn3f2BTzBxaVru-e7lJtqplCCXXvK2TH_moXqjnrOGlmh8lEEz0eQs0bllw/s1600/1-11-14+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqi3QOsAV6fJPq4BURi6WaZELVolHJasseAB4fBSOLOHV7Dg5r6Ty_nj8Y5ar4HmukOwdG2-hGMrxzNGNomn3f2BTzBxaVru-e7lJtqplCCXXvK2TH_moXqjnrOGlmh8lEEz0eQs0bllw/s1600/1-11-14+2.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1QnppE2izpvc7mb7ARZTQb9zGO7SaIEFeudKmmW-A_XNB5x5KP_cJ_ArhdVWMEY-9hV4LSGPiQFty0iWzrWUwm0lWM1izU9ENjUNmxu3q2Zzg_B7aYyyn6uSSiqZ-GVRBPQLcaHP54HQ/s1600/1-11-14+5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1QnppE2izpvc7mb7ARZTQb9zGO7SaIEFeudKmmW-A_XNB5x5KP_cJ_ArhdVWMEY-9hV4LSGPiQFty0iWzrWUwm0lWM1izU9ENjUNmxu3q2Zzg_B7aYyyn6uSSiqZ-GVRBPQLcaHP54HQ/s1600/1-11-14+5.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrf1m2XBtKQfBGpyWRJ6mbN679ZXYoCt47FHlEh166YBr4BPb01tuiU2FhFoIg6cyMz8OM8QbZQJTwqtJzvJoIlFDmTs4JOw42lepTX6KtPMMhmuIv0WCcilbfJXmJ0vB5SMQ5LIMUVO4/s1600/1-12-14+6.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrf1m2XBtKQfBGpyWRJ6mbN679ZXYoCt47FHlEh166YBr4BPb01tuiU2FhFoIg6cyMz8OM8QbZQJTwqtJzvJoIlFDmTs4JOw42lepTX6KtPMMhmuIv0WCcilbfJXmJ0vB5SMQ5LIMUVO4/s1600/1-12-14+6.png" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjX2uhpru4JqsTwZusdCPqS7uxwvhz6Ocee_bgERMakDeFQtk_cq3m0Y1WVfmNqgK1t5eP1Al8juVosh76A1NnbiYCsO4yBpssrgzLnUluWtfXWFeBCaXucD9ajz7iu4MYS-4A033OHKOo/s1600/1-12-14+7.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjX2uhpru4JqsTwZusdCPqS7uxwvhz6Ocee_bgERMakDeFQtk_cq3m0Y1WVfmNqgK1t5eP1Al8juVosh76A1NnbiYCsO4yBpssrgzLnUluWtfXWFeBCaXucD9ajz7iu4MYS-4A033OHKOo/s1600/1-12-14+7.jpg" height="216" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh65MnLRPJ3zb1DPgIOjlYzV7upCyF6WJOXfi4i1KuxLQf9JJK_lBFNpla4qQRtlnumAUMs6VBGE2h_LzgxGe4b9mCVIhwfEBGPuu2m-xCPLWNLSTAr2cL9XRZjqfOYzozXWaZoO16A6Gg/s1600/1-12-14+8.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh65MnLRPJ3zb1DPgIOjlYzV7upCyF6WJOXfi4i1KuxLQf9JJK_lBFNpla4qQRtlnumAUMs6VBGE2h_LzgxGe4b9mCVIhwfEBGPuu2m-xCPLWNLSTAr2cL9XRZjqfOYzozXWaZoO16A6Gg/s1600/1-12-14+8.png" height="320" width="319" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGp2pdZLOZNeBwSRRPRlUUtWhQJ2oIlFCqk3bM07BVbBKZVCr6qBpj22Y3PGl3f2adkyhk-mJsWRBtuqkbr6v7bjWzfz86tDPwz_ZimuSFcUNTbKvJ7DZsTdnUOcgVULwdr83KEaMvme4/s1600/1-13-14+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGp2pdZLOZNeBwSRRPRlUUtWhQJ2oIlFCqk3bM07BVbBKZVCr6qBpj22Y3PGl3f2adkyhk-mJsWRBtuqkbr6v7bjWzfz86tDPwz_ZimuSFcUNTbKvJ7DZsTdnUOcgVULwdr83KEaMvme4/s1600/1-13-14+2.jpg" height="256" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7Zj8aVa6BjuV_7hgjpitirIDkGCISWv0E6WXn6JQdIYcVj1b199Onhm1vo-fporLgYJ0yxuVwlxbjkULZTBg3tkuhLheazIBV4Pid61h6Gi3ZWpygxtyYgUB4jhZTEggFptXZxfPTRJU/s1600/1-13-14+3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7Zj8aVa6BjuV_7hgjpitirIDkGCISWv0E6WXn6JQdIYcVj1b199Onhm1vo-fporLgYJ0yxuVwlxbjkULZTBg3tkuhLheazIBV4Pid61h6Gi3ZWpygxtyYgUB4jhZTEggFptXZxfPTRJU/s1600/1-13-14+3.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqfAg9KJgPOshnJOowmat99U_xLz7g8s7zb5ctWQHDT3PV4Bk2FP7KLW0d4HAy-3YOH1RvOZy_EaEWYyL_opBOlngrD_rRrqC5SA4D_1TySvIIEhOJN-mVHY_VP-7614U3q5Kd6bsjYO4/s1600/1-18-14+11.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqfAg9KJgPOshnJOowmat99U_xLz7g8s7zb5ctWQHDT3PV4Bk2FP7KLW0d4HAy-3YOH1RvOZy_EaEWYyL_opBOlngrD_rRrqC5SA4D_1TySvIIEhOJN-mVHY_VP-7614U3q5Kd6bsjYO4/s1600/1-18-14+11.jpg" height="320" width="245" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsSP4KNzB6nf6BqcK2tyWgAy3PbcHHX5fWgdgkUro3D1hzu_sWbepfvMjNpc7wzVzlyq-LYZczitE7ke26Y-MDQ_Irin3u4FkTFSHtb9_TmvrYAcDPvwd26rUkRSEiwYxGUdv1g0kzjK8/s1600/1-13-14+4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsSP4KNzB6nf6BqcK2tyWgAy3PbcHHX5fWgdgkUro3D1hzu_sWbepfvMjNpc7wzVzlyq-LYZczitE7ke26Y-MDQ_Irin3u4FkTFSHtb9_TmvrYAcDPvwd26rUkRSEiwYxGUdv1g0kzjK8/s1600/1-13-14+4.jpg" height="168" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTGhn44BjK-Hh8F7XOo6V4zzEjuDzg_E0KI9c0PII-IsxD6FLBMzE3xOrJBwh6ZGfsvZNc0v9sbLPFF55qKINbmfwiW4pncOoBu8FmYlCr0WZjRn1J5gnaV4D46zcxcJwjvjif4ASm4ys/s1600/1-13-14+6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTGhn44BjK-Hh8F7XOo6V4zzEjuDzg_E0KI9c0PII-IsxD6FLBMzE3xOrJBwh6ZGfsvZNc0v9sbLPFF55qKINbmfwiW4pncOoBu8FmYlCr0WZjRn1J5gnaV4D46zcxcJwjvjif4ASm4ys/s1600/1-13-14+6.jpg" height="209" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioJDaWAQbfzWyaE1oTbJU793KjSEAuHZzOPdX13HFjKxKD5e79rktMVDpQDh26vJ206HJOVnDp-57ihRx1Jo7XVH3AdnUFXeTYCkyAQ8LrD6GHYWkLNJracqYpa6W1yILzEn0m014EHA4/s1600/1-15-14+5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioJDaWAQbfzWyaE1oTbJU793KjSEAuHZzOPdX13HFjKxKD5e79rktMVDpQDh26vJ206HJOVnDp-57ihRx1Jo7XVH3AdnUFXeTYCkyAQ8LrD6GHYWkLNJracqYpa6W1yILzEn0m014EHA4/s1600/1-15-14+5.jpg" height="269" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgY_oIBJH4MSDjuNlGFqliOt4DDUriu0U0FjDAjz84Rt7GD2LMEFGdzkVYrnj6XI7f2DMgj3MuPIUVb716e1l6R7bW6NT_L4AMcv5SXJPGAI2qIHk4RXV1v7GNd2_OJm9c6PJSwPFRjzgg/s1600/1-15-14+6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgY_oIBJH4MSDjuNlGFqliOt4DDUriu0U0FjDAjz84Rt7GD2LMEFGdzkVYrnj6XI7f2DMgj3MuPIUVb716e1l6R7bW6NT_L4AMcv5SXJPGAI2qIHk4RXV1v7GNd2_OJm9c6PJSwPFRjzgg/s1600/1-15-14+6.jpg" height="241" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlb41W7H9ro8SX5P8zbfoNJ_KqntRB_4RK278NLUO_R0Lap6hZB8ZSmzPLol57NBiRV7NRZzviz0HvTpTOHIaksUUC0mPzJ9LrnnYzP1hqQZiBmEDypM4eoFWwpT83Tg4htwFti9Pq6dE/s1600/1-15-14+7.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlb41W7H9ro8SX5P8zbfoNJ_KqntRB_4RK278NLUO_R0Lap6hZB8ZSmzPLol57NBiRV7NRZzviz0HvTpTOHIaksUUC0mPzJ9LrnnYzP1hqQZiBmEDypM4eoFWwpT83Tg4htwFti9Pq6dE/s1600/1-15-14+7.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGuyydfMQqCx2IThpP60OR53ouNsRqFmjTtcIbVEgTzzi0gj2sozzrFPMTUW4f3OJAnupHBpSJAQ-v1S4RKlc34icCCGrz4V41wjZHPU8FCnQ0a3cqB_vKEQAG5ZsZnIYIcABDokH8Gf4/s1600/1-15-14+8.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGuyydfMQqCx2IThpP60OR53ouNsRqFmjTtcIbVEgTzzi0gj2sozzrFPMTUW4f3OJAnupHBpSJAQ-v1S4RKlc34icCCGrz4V41wjZHPU8FCnQ0a3cqB_vKEQAG5ZsZnIYIcABDokH8Gf4/s1600/1-15-14+8.png" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvf_k3cV6J3gO8Dhn_xLBpMGhCrgqPJ6H2JZ8zEsw3PNZ41YjnUa3cIfTxEMZZGcfMXore5tC-YjeGDEsbSCn6xOhr0xUBRC4KrAkwaLaj-810gssW7_d9X1C25DrpJz7LmBsKrWItOHc/s1600/1-16-14+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvf_k3cV6J3gO8Dhn_xLBpMGhCrgqPJ6H2JZ8zEsw3PNZ41YjnUa3cIfTxEMZZGcfMXore5tC-YjeGDEsbSCn6xOhr0xUBRC4KrAkwaLaj-810gssW7_d9X1C25DrpJz7LmBsKrWItOHc/s1600/1-16-14+1.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1JLUsHgC2Tn6tw1T6MO3_-wyWTA-_j0rAmk2LbkW1zpx1O9uO5ISs8k08lXgXjjtjFaYS5Wp0pnSK4FTMrz84atlXe8tl0ttFilbPuRlUsIarFxC5GXGGIgzT9Uskpqef80opiDRvhYI/s1600/1-16-14+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1JLUsHgC2Tn6tw1T6MO3_-wyWTA-_j0rAmk2LbkW1zpx1O9uO5ISs8k08lXgXjjtjFaYS5Wp0pnSK4FTMrz84atlXe8tl0ttFilbPuRlUsIarFxC5GXGGIgzT9Uskpqef80opiDRvhYI/s1600/1-16-14+2.jpg" height="304" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsHVRu3gu_WpYwcwa18rFXTRRUl7L755cxYiS_CdmkY06VixDMpyp9S6x0y6GwYdk-JfmR775D0Gkbi2aMci2gnrzt_GfzHiB2FUvhegIsJYxu9fXH5D976LdIg4vOHZTOIc3tvXmql5g/s1600/1-16-14+3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsHVRu3gu_WpYwcwa18rFXTRRUl7L755cxYiS_CdmkY06VixDMpyp9S6x0y6GwYdk-JfmR775D0Gkbi2aMci2gnrzt_GfzHiB2FUvhegIsJYxu9fXH5D976LdIg4vOHZTOIc3tvXmql5g/s1600/1-16-14+3.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHMLtMBCP0fyXop97JvKwevSO9TSrCV7aoJ7xpCjcXybYeeRWPmnG3cf6mPz6c93LF4TfF_VKjKS-3RArFxgaDmoh9xEYm4z4kkGCEO_T1KnTqzOhJ5SfiywVkn1W4mUjH5lZK-YS3YQ4/s1600/1-17-14+5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHMLtMBCP0fyXop97JvKwevSO9TSrCV7aoJ7xpCjcXybYeeRWPmnG3cf6mPz6c93LF4TfF_VKjKS-3RArFxgaDmoh9xEYm4z4kkGCEO_T1KnTqzOhJ5SfiywVkn1W4mUjH5lZK-YS3YQ4/s1600/1-17-14+5.jpg" height="251" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBU2vGYCxe88p78XfRMduKZMCUzvxWYxyvvNWLg4olINoA89meaUfkmPBfKxsvJu9gkmFhJI69RtIwxEbD8rj-xU8x-0OnWJ2Us-JDLjq5nHXrMlGdZY1pk17XUEbs2LEGU_tog7-uueM/s1600/1-17-14+7.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBU2vGYCxe88p78XfRMduKZMCUzvxWYxyvvNWLg4olINoA89meaUfkmPBfKxsvJu9gkmFhJI69RtIwxEbD8rj-xU8x-0OnWJ2Us-JDLjq5nHXrMlGdZY1pk17XUEbs2LEGU_tog7-uueM/s1600/1-17-14+7.jpg" height="257" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8veiwAPqra6E2hTXayUvMZe3VSFd4G6Gqs07gyLnevCLmSEnLJH-IAOZJ4GGlXERqKM7hM6MO458dIIusaLuGYeTMXACYby1e_yubaw20BpovVK8jrHxau1-Aoc_BTvJFbhWIg2dfMnM/s1600/1-18-14+5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8veiwAPqra6E2hTXayUvMZe3VSFd4G6Gqs07gyLnevCLmSEnLJH-IAOZJ4GGlXERqKM7hM6MO458dIIusaLuGYeTMXACYby1e_yubaw20BpovVK8jrHxau1-Aoc_BTvJFbhWIg2dfMnM/s1600/1-18-14+5.jpg" height="239" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGE0IjJkUn9iJBth_mSkFMuQnAlg7P3cFaNDr2QGH_JNEZJAVL3DakranZmrYZoklS9Ym7nXgoKONorOgDb6EzPikouynTJZf-WDUsc_mUVQ2dHBHJbPHhsyuVP60z-MbXlKjcLWh935g/s1600/1-18-14+10.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGE0IjJkUn9iJBth_mSkFMuQnAlg7P3cFaNDr2QGH_JNEZJAVL3DakranZmrYZoklS9Ym7nXgoKONorOgDb6EzPikouynTJZf-WDUsc_mUVQ2dHBHJbPHhsyuVP60z-MbXlKjcLWh935g/s1600/1-18-14+10.jpg" height="233" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAAn-8OX3niFDi9stYkxtYid-VMQ94uh4Nx1HQ_VQr0TFzE6dLwmke9tHkMULCytP6YcJYQSuf0FB2Mj02PZ4U-k8YDRLl-7rThe0Y9c0OuzKZbvXdMhoYPYAT4UFG1uHwEGYQ48m1S1g/s1600/1-18-14+12.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAAn-8OX3niFDi9stYkxtYid-VMQ94uh4Nx1HQ_VQr0TFzE6dLwmke9tHkMULCytP6YcJYQSuf0FB2Mj02PZ4U-k8YDRLl-7rThe0Y9c0OuzKZbvXdMhoYPYAT4UFG1uHwEGYQ48m1S1g/s1600/1-18-14+12.jpg" height="314" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
_________________________________________________________</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<strong>To read more comics. <em><a href="http://bclabjfoley.blogspot.com/2013/07/idiot-chronicles-part-2.html">click here.</a></em></strong> </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-14454333263339956492013-12-23T10:47:00.004-08:002013-12-23T10:59:46.863-08:00Duck Flap: Truth is ‘Hate’ to Those Who Hate Truth<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheLvLMgMYwyyorWlQg-Ub1eLcDOfzkOhwNRx9beuBh5LwcSl-DlSHENfQjbRhFI4OIHHib18DLdMRyi6r713RiXlSzlRX5BKnvmyAuuVCSsxRbBzhz2K3-AmX7Vi8mgfTTLj0zCTjfQGg/s1600/1536449_10152636733959657_503045340_n%5B1%5D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheLvLMgMYwyyorWlQg-Ub1eLcDOfzkOhwNRx9beuBh5LwcSl-DlSHENfQjbRhFI4OIHHib18DLdMRyi6r713RiXlSzlRX5BKnvmyAuuVCSsxRbBzhz2K3-AmX7Vi8mgfTTLj0zCTjfQGg/s320/1536449_10152636733959657_503045340_n%5B1%5D.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<strong>Duck Flap: Truth is ‘Hate’ to Those Who Hate Truth </strong> <br />
<h5>
12/23/2013 12:05:00 AM - Matt Barber</h5>
<div class="article-ad-pull-right pull-right">
<div id="div-gpt-1415411598-0">
</div>
</div>
As widely reported, Phil Robertson, the patriarch in A&E’s breakaway hit “Duck Dynasty,” recently ran a-fowl of homosexual pressure groups, ruffling “progressive” feathers throughout concentrat<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="_GoBack"></a>ed pockets of deep blue America. He remains suspended “indefinitely” for candidly summarizing, in a <a href="http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson?currentPage=1">recent interview</a> with GQ Magazine, the millennia-long “Love the sinner, hate the sin” biblical stance on homosexual practice.<br />
<br />
“It seems like, to me, a vagina – as a man – would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me,” he bluntly opined. “I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes!”<br />
<br />
Dudes worldwide – <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/duck-flap-truth-is-hate-to-those-who-hate-truth/print/">save</a> self-styled “gays,” Pajama Boy and a few liberal men actually rumored to be heterosexual – responded: “Eww! I know, right.”<br />
<br />
“You know what I’m saying?” continued Robertson. “But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical,” he noted.<br />
<br />
Robertson also addressed other sins, paraphrasing <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-10&version=NASB">1 Corinthians 6:9-10</a>: “Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers – they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”<br />
“I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me,” he later added. “We are all created by the Almighty, and like Him, I love all of humanity.”<br />
<br />
Barring a handful of “progressive” revisionists, Christian theologians have since observed that, while Robertson’s position on sexual sin is 100 percent biblically, morally and biologically correct, it is, nonetheless, precisely 0 percent politically correct.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, Robertson seems to have been quoting directly from the rare, though accurate, “Louisiana Revised Standard Living Translation.”<br />
<br />
Even so, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) was outraged. GLAAD spokesman Francis Twinklebean offered a scathing, though typically insightful, analysis of Robertson’s opinion: “Quack quack quack bigot,” said Twinklebean. “Quack quack vile quack intolerance quack quack homophobia quack,” he added, finally demanding: “A&E must fire Phil Robertson.”<br />
<br />
The “gay”-activist Human Rights Campaign (HRC) was no less distressed, as evidenced by HRC mouthpiece Randy Van Grindr: “The First Amendment? That’s so 1776,” he said. “This is 2013. Speech isn’t free, you know. Intolerance will not be tolerated. Give us our pound of flesh! A&E must fire Phil Robertson.”<br />
<br />
A&E, which had <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2013/10/10/duck-dynasty-star-name-jesus-too-hot-television">already begun</a> censoring the cast’s Christian speech with fake bleeps to cover words like “Jesus” and “Christ,” dutifully complied. “We’re just sick of all this redneck Jesusy stuff,” A&E representative Moe Ronic told reporters. “And besides, making truckloads of <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/duck-flap-truth-is-hate-to-those-who-hate-truth/print/">money</a> is really overrated,” he added, referencing the show’s No. 1 all-time ranking.<br />
<br />
“In fact,” he continued, “just the other day I was sharing an Appletini with Bob, our program director, and he was pining for the good ol’ days – back when we had ratings like MSNBC’s ‘Winter Solstice Generic Holiday Special.’<br />
<br />
“You know, more money means more work – what, with the <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/duck-flap-truth-is-hate-to-those-who-hate-truth/print/">bookkeeping</a> and all,” he pointed out. “Most of us at A&E are actually quite excited to get back to the utter irrelevance and obscurity from whence we came.”<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the Fox Network and a bevy of cable channels have reportedly lined up with drool bibs to pounce on the show should relations with A&E go deeper south.<br />
<br />
A Fox source offered comment on condition of anonymity: “Remember that time someone disagreed with Christianity and got fired?” he asked. “Me neither. A&E needs the Robertsons more than they need A&E.”<br />
<br />
Still, questions remained as to who’s got it right on homosexuality; GLAAD, HRC and other “progressives,” or Phil Robertson and Christianity. To get answers, we went straight to the Source: God, Author of all truth, sovereign Creator of the universe and Maker of mankind.<br />
God said to relax. The issue has been long settled.<br />
<br />
All sexual sin – adultery, fornication, bestiality, incest and, yes, the practice of homosexuality – is “contrary to sound doctrine,” He noted unequivocally (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Tim.%201:10&version=ESV">1 Timothy 1:10</a>). “Guys, when I said, ‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination,’ I meant it,” He added (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.%2018:22&version=ESV">Leviticus 18:22</a>).<br />
<br />
The Creator then offered an urgent admonition to GLAAD, HRC and others living under both sexual deception and the unrepentant homosexual lifestyle. He warned that unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences: “Because of this, [I] gave [you] over to shameful lusts. Even [you ladies] exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way [you fellas] also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. [You’ve] committed shameful acts with other men, and [have] received in [yourselves] the due penalty for [your] error” (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:26-27&version=NIV">Romans 1:26-27</a>).<br />
<br />
Still, being both wholly righteous and merciful beyond measure, The Heavenly Father then offered hope for homosexuals, as well as for every other sinner on the planet (that would be all of us). He was quick to point out that no one person is better than another, and that He loves us all, not because of our sins – to include the “intrinsically disordered” homosexual identity and lifestyle – but in spite of them. “None is righteous, no, not one,” He said (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.%203:10&version=ESV">Romans 3:10</a>).<br />
<br />
We are all lost and in need of the Savior, He further urged (especially yours truly), saying, with specific reference to homosexuality, adultery and other forms of sexual immorality: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by [My Spirit]” (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor.%206:11&version=ESV">1 Corinthians 6:11</a>).<br />
<br />
As untold thousands – <a href="http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647">likely millions</a> – of former homosexuals will attest, through the unmatched grace of Christ, there can be freedom from all forms of bondage to sin – even “LGBT” behavior.<br />
Meanwhile, since the Duck flap hit, Jesus Himself has reportedly reached out to Phil Robertson with a Word of encouragement. He told him to keep fishing for souls and hunting for ducks. He said that Robertson shouldn’t sweat the small stuff – like the ongoing assault for speaking truth in love.<br />
<br />
“Phil,” He said, “You will be hated by everyone because of me, but [if you] stand firm to the end, [you] will be saved” (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010:22&version=NIV">Matthew 10:22</a>).<br />
<br />
“Oh, and by the way,” Jesus added: “Well done my good and faithful servant.”<br />
______________________________________________<br />
<br />
<strong><em>To read more articles by Matt Barber, <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/">click here.</a></em></strong><br />
<strong><em></em></strong><br />
<strong><em>To read more about 'Duck Dynasty', <a href="http://bclabjfoley.blogspot.com/2013/12/duck-dynasty-family-show-will-not-go.html">click here.</a></em></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-41902211383113046492013-12-20T15:53:00.000-08:002013-12-22T00:28:02.067-08:00Pandemonium: Obama partially waives individual mandate as ObamaCare comes crashing down<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYg2xtOodBHgmr5RWKHyUsCbD6LS4zkPgaTuInBw1Onu_jvA25VZ3_1lFDS2p9Le3Si63p9wvngUNUi5XIHqQ3zdu1vomzyXAto1mo1PIyBaPmu4Jxi0VO_vxSI9F_-L6V0r0RTFPb7a4/s1600/12-19-13+19.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYg2xtOodBHgmr5RWKHyUsCbD6LS4zkPgaTuInBw1Onu_jvA25VZ3_1lFDS2p9Le3Si63p9wvngUNUi5XIHqQ3zdu1vomzyXAto1mo1PIyBaPmu4Jxi0VO_vxSI9F_-L6V0r0RTFPb7a4/s320/12-19-13+19.jpg" /></a><br />
<b>Pandemonium: Obama partially waives individual mandate as ObamaCare comes crashing down</b> <br />
By: John Hayward <br />
12/20/2013 08:59 AM<br />
<br />
It was already the biggest disaster in history, but even by the standards of ObamaCare failure we’ve grown accustomed to, this is jaw-dropping. Critics thought something like this was probably coming, but it’s still amazing to see it get here… delivered, of course, by the usual royal fiat of dubious legality. Barack Obama was kicking World War II veterans out of their own memorial during Shutdown Theater to thwart the kind of delay he just imposed.<br />
<br />
Remember those old Obama lies about how virtually no one was actually losing their health insurance, and all the Democrats who sneered at those unfortunate souls as “red herrings” and “anecdotes?” Remember how the Republicans who accurately warned about this problem were dismissed as “Chicken Littles?”<br />
<br />
Remember how, when he could no longer pretend it wasn’t happening, Obama tried to pin the blame for all those insurance cancellations on the captive corporations pinned under his boot? When that didn’t work, he tried to tell people who lost their insurance they should be <i>glad</i> he killed their plans – he did them a <i>favor,</i> because they were too stupid to realize their lousy old junk plans were “bad apple” products foisted upon them by shady insurance companies.<br />
<br />
Attention all Obama drones, “journalists,” and liberal pundits: all Administration talking points from the past three months just became invalid. Fresh talking points will soon arrive from Obama’s vacation palace in Hawaii, where he’s jetting off for a fabulous 17-day holiday vacation after throwing the health insurance industry into utter chaos.<br />
<br />
Rejoice, humble peasants, because if Obama’s Big Lie about “keeping your plan if you like your plan” resulted in your plan getting canceled, His Benevolent Majesty, King Clusterfark I, has decreed that you won’t be fined for not having the insurance that you can’t afford because of his idiotic “law,” and couldn’t buy if you wanted to, because of his crappy website. And the announcement was delivered in the most cowardly manner imaginable, on the eve of the Christmas holiday. From National Journal:<br />
<br />
<i>The Obama administration will not require the millions of Americans who received health-insurance plan cancellation notices to purchase a new policy next year.<br />
<br />
They’re granting those consumers an exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, a Department of Heath and Human Services spokeswoman confirmed. The mandate requires everyone to have health insurance or face a tax penalty, the greater of $95 or 1 percent of income in 2014.<br />
<br />
The administration will also allow those consumers to sign up for catastrophic coverage. Those bare-bones plans are available to people who are under 30 or qualify for a “hardship exemption.”<br />
<br />
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., that the administration is granting a “hardship exemption” to Americans whose plans were canceled and “might be having difficulty” paying for standard coverage.<br />
</i><br />
To claim your hardship exemption, just write “OBAMA IS PRESIDENT” as the hardship on your paperwork. The old plan you liked was affordable and gave you all the coverage you needed, but now that Obama has destroyed it, he will graciously allow you to buy a bare-bones catastrophic plan instead. Why are you not on your knees with gratitude, lowly peasant?<br />
<br />
Actually, these newly re-defined catastrophic plans are a bit more complicated than that. Avik Roy of Forbes - who predicts the “stunning reversal” of the individual mandate will unleash “utter chaos” in the industry – explains:<br />
<br />
The catastrophic plans under ObamaCare aren’t like the ones you might be familiar with. ACA-compliant “catastrophic plans” have to cover all of the services defined as “preventive” by the government, along with all of the ObamaCare-defined “essential health benefits,” like drug-addiction therapy.<br />
<br />
The major difference between the regular ObamaCare “bronze” plan and the ObamaCare “catastrophic” plan is that the catastrophic plan covers three primary care visits prior to hitting the deductible. Which isn’t that much of a difference at all.<br />
<br />
The catastrophic plans are supposed to be available only to those under 30, and those older than 30 who can’t find coverage for less than 8 percent of their income. And the catastrophic plans are not eligible for ObamaCare’s premium support subsidies.<br />
<br />
Which, as Roy notes, means that in some areas, the catastrophic plan will effectively cost more out-of-pocket than bronze-level coverage does. People confronted with this absurdity are likely to follow the path so many have already settled on, and make do without insurance altogether. But at least the King has decided to allow them a year’s grace before he begins fining them for surviving without the coverage he wiped out. You’re welcome, America!<br />
<br />
The reason this news came in a letter to Senator Warner is that he’s part of a group of Democrats who wrote to Secretary Sebelius a few months ago, asking for “clarification” on whether that “hardship exemption” could be stretched to include the hardship of ObamaCare being a disaster.<br />
<br />
Amusingly, flop-sweating anonymous Administration officials claim that only about 500,000 people will be affected by this exemption. That would mean over 90 percent of the nearly 6 million people who lost coverage when the Big Lie exploded have either made new arrangements with their providers, or miraculously got past the Healthcare.gov bugs to buy their shiny new hyper-expensive high-deductible Affordable Care Act plans. That seems… optimistic. But then, Standard Operating Procedure for the Administration throughout this debacle has involved conjuring whatever absurd factoids are necessary to survive the current news cycle, and hope everyone forgets it when the truth becomes impossible to spin. Judging by overnight reports of reaction from industry leaders, nobody really believes there will be only half a million people coming for those “catastrophic” plans, to say nothing of the folks who will just make do without insurance altogether.<br />
<br />
You’re still out of luck if you didn’t have insurance before ObamaCare went into effect – i.e. you’re one of the people this pile of pseudo-fascist garbage was inflicted on the rest of us to help. You’ll still be paying a special tax if you haven’t overcome the odds to buy an insurance policy you probably can’t afford – assuming, of course, that His Benevolent Majesty doesn’t change the Settled Law of the Land with another wave of his hand next year.<br />
<br />
How are the insurance companies taking this last-minute development, as they scramble to process a mountain of dead-tree applications and sort out the garbage data they’ve received from the ObamaCare exchanges, with just a few business days left on the calendar?<br />
<br />
<i>The deal for consumers is yet another burden for insurers, who earlier this week went along with the White House’s request to grant leniency to consumers paying premiums in January. Consumers will now be allowed to send payments until Jan. 10 and receive coverage retroactively to Jan. 1.<br />
<br />
This change could have a more long-term impact. Catastrophic-coverage plans were priced with a 30-and-under consumer base in mind. And with thousands who were barred from the market due to preexisting conditions expected to purchase the new coverage, allowing people who already had coverage to go without it could upset the balance of the risk pool. The Affordable Care Act exchanges need enough healthy people to balance out the costs of care for the sick or premiums could rise in 2015, creating a “death spiral” and jeopardizing the law’s success altogether.<br />
<br />
Consumers have until 11:59 p.m. EST on Dec. 23 to sign up for coverage that begins Jan. 1.</i><br />
<br />
Oh, well, no pressure then. Plenty of hours remain until the deadline guillotine drops!<br />
<br />
Karen Ignagni, president of the insurance industry trade associated AHIP, warned “this latest rule change could cause significant instability in the marketplace and lead to further confusion and disruption for consumers.” Avik Roy at Forbes says industry executives are describing the current state of the Administration as “panic mode.”<br />
<br />
Tax serfs, prepare to dig deep and cough up billions to bail out the insurance companies caught in this death spiral. They supported ObamaCare to gain access to your wallets, and by God, they’re going to get the guaranteed profits Barack Obama promised them, one way or the other. Attention drones, journalists, liberal bloggers: prepare to shred all Obama talking points related to fiscal discipline and deficit reduction.<br />
<br />
This would all have been much easier to deal with if it had been done months ago, but Obama’s arrogance and political needs wouldn’t allow that. Instead, like everything else to do with ObamaCare, lies were told, documents were hidden, and everything was pushed back until the last possible moment. <b><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/20/administration-announces-new-obamacare-exemption/">Fox News</a></b> has some Republican responses in an article that describes this as “an 11th-hour change,” but it’s really more like 11:58, and the doomsday chimes are starting to crank up deep inside the Armageddon clock, while the cuckoo of despair limbers up its throat.<br />
<br />
<i>“Holding a fire sale of cheap insurance is not a responsible fix for a broken program. This is a slap in the face to the thousands of Americans who have already purchased expensive insurance through the ObamaCare exchanges,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said in a statement.<br />
<br />
House Energy and Commerce Committee Vice Chairman Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., described the move as “another major policy shift” from the Obama administration.<br />
<br />
“We asked Secretary Sebelius point blank what would be the next holiday surprise, and she was silent. Yet, here we are with another major policy shift. The sad reality is that when the law takes effect come January 1, more Americans will be without coverage under Obamacare than one year ago,” Blackburn said in a statement released Thursday evening.<br />
<br />
“Less than two weeks from going live, the White House seems to be in full panic mode. Rather than more White House delays, waivers, and exemptions, the administration should provide all Americans relief from its failed law.”</i><br />
<br />
It may seem quaint to bring up the rule of law with respect to the naked power grab of ObamaCare, but it doesn’t seem entirely legal for the executive branch to arbitrarily waive a tax – certified as such by the Supreme Court, you may recall – for a select group of people. The only thing those people have in common is that they lost their insurance policies due to <i>another</i> Administration action, specifically the HHS regulations that made it nearly impossible for existing insurance plans to be “grandfathered” into the Affordable Care Act era.<br />
<br />
We’ll probably have to wait months or years for retroactively processed lawsuits to sort that out, since in this lawless banana republic, there is no one to stop the Administration from doing whatever it pleases, statute and Constitution be damned. The choice always should have been between lawful implementation of the Affordable Care Act and repeal, but that’s how things work in better, stronger, more orderly republics.<br />
<br />
I took the liberty of updating the infamous “Pajama Boy” ObamaCare ad to reflect the latest news:<br />
________________________________________<br />
<br />
<b><i>To read more about Obamacare, <a href="http://bcfoley.blogspot.com/2013/12/story-of-year.html">click here.</a></i></b><br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-58129952056539894142013-12-20T14:55:00.000-08:002013-12-20T15:02:26.319-08:00Story of the year<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMwLVa0ncuultdcGOymOQtKCffj5cSPG40xwnGAO_0LMh2XcPH5er-pUcM1-EDNRPv82Jq-THkhpmUuyb1aLZcYOyuj2JL6To8DWKXS_GDrmgMer_mNOSn9MWfow3tOPAzRBvBFfXNt98/s1600/12-19-13+18.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" closure_lm_393143="null" gua="true" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMwLVa0ncuultdcGOymOQtKCffj5cSPG40xwnGAO_0LMh2XcPH5er-pUcM1-EDNRPv82Jq-THkhpmUuyb1aLZcYOyuj2JL6To8DWKXS_GDrmgMer_mNOSn9MWfow3tOPAzRBvBFfXNt98/s320/12-19-13+18.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><b>Story of the year</b><br />
By: Charles Krauthammer <br />
12/20/2013 02:42 PM<br />
<br />
The lie of the year, <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/">according to Politifact</a>, is “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” But the story of the year is a nation waking up to just how radical Obamacare is — which is why it required such outright deception to get it passed in the first place.<br />
<br />
Obamacare was sold as simply a refinement of the current system, retaining competition among independent insurers but making things more efficient, fair and generous. Free contraceptives for Sandra Fluke. Free mammograms and checkups for you and me. Free (or subsidized) insurance for some 30 million uninsured. And, <i>mirabile dictu</i>, not costing the government a dime.<br />
<br />
In fact, Obamacare is a full-scale federal takeover. The keep-your-plan-if-you-like-your-plan ruse was a way of saying to the millions of Americans who had insurance and liked what they had: Don’t worry. You’ll be left unmolested. For you, everything goes on as before.<br />
<br />
That was a fraud from the very beginning. The law was designed to throw people off their private plans and into government-run exchanges where they would be made to overpay — forced to purchase government-mandated services they don’t need — as a way to subsidize others. (That’s how you get to the ostensible free lunch.)<br />
<br />
It wasn’t until the first cancellation notices went out in late 2013 that the deception began to be understood. And felt. <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2013/12/11/healthcare-gov-gains-some-momentum-with-365000-signed-up-nearly-2-million-eligible/">Six million Americans</a> with private insurance have just lost it. And that’s just the beginning. By the Department of Health and Human Services’ <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-17/pdf/2010-14488.pdf">own estimates,</a> about <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/">75 million Americanswould have plans that their employers would have the right to cancel.</a> And millions of middle-class workers who will migrate to the exchanges and don’t qualify for government subsidies will see their premiums, deductibles and co-pays go up.<br />
<br />
It gets worse. The dislocation extends to losing one’s doctor and drug coverage, as insurance companies narrow availability to compensate for the huge costs imposed on them by the extended coverage and “free” services the new law mandates.<br />
<br />
But it’s not just individuals seeing their medical care turned upside down. The insurance providers, the backbone of the system, are being utterly transformed. They are rapidly becoming mere extensions of the federal government.<br />
<br />
Look what happened just last week. <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/hhs-obamacare-coverage-gap-101101.html">Health and Human Services unilaterally</a> and without warning changed coverage deadlines and guidelines. It asked insurers to start covering people on Jan. 1 even if they signed up as late as the day before and even if they hadn’t paid their premiums. And is <a href="http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2013pres/12/20131212a.html">“strongly encouraging”</a> them to pay during the transition for doctor visits and medicinesnot covered in their current plans (if covered in the patient’s previous — canceled — plan).<br />
<br />
On what authority does a Cabinet secretary tell private companies to pay for services not in their plans and cover people not on their rolls? Where in Obamacare’s 2,500 pages are such high-handed dictates authorized? Does anyone even ask? The bill itself is simply taken as a kind of blanket warrant for HHS to run, regulate and control the whole insurance system.<br />
<br />
Remember the uproar over forcing religious institutions to provide contraception coverage? The president’s <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/28/politics/obama-contraceptives/">“fix”</a> was a new regulation ordering insurers to provide these services for free. Apart from the fact that this transparent ruse does nothing to resolve the underlying issue of conscience — God sees — by what right does the government order private companies to provide free services for anyone?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120906371.html">Three years ago I predicted</a> that Obamacare would turn insurers into the lapdog equivalent of utility companies. I undershot. They are being treated as wholly owned subsidiaries. Take the phrase “strongly encouraging.” Sweet persuasion? In reality, these are offers insurers can’t refuse. Disappoint your federal master and he has the power to kick you off the federal exchanges, where the health insurance business of the future is supposed to be conducted.<br />
<br />
Moreover, if adverse selection drives insurers into a financial death spiral — too few healthy young people to offset more costly, sicker, older folks — their only recourse will be a government bailout. Do they really want to get on the wrong side of the White House, their only lifeline when facing insolvency?<br />
<br />
I don’t care a whit for the insurance companies. They deserve what they get. They collaborated with the White House in concocting this scheme and are now being swallowed by it. But I do care about the citizenry and its access to a functioning, flourishing, choice-driven medical system.<br />
<br />
Obamacare posed as a free-market alternative to a British-style single-payer system. Then, during congressional debate, the White House ostentatiously rejected the so-called “public option.” But that’s irrelevant. The whole damn thing is the public option. The federal government now runs the insurance market, dictating deadlines, procedures, rates, risk assessments and coverage requirements. It’s gotten so cocky it’s now telling insurers to cover the claims that, by law, they are not required to.<br />
<br />
Welcome 2014, our first taste of nationalized health care.<br />
____________________________________________<br />
<br />
<b><i>To read more about Charles Krauthammer, <a href="http://bcfoley.blogspot.com/2010/06/dr-charles-krauthammer.html">click here.</a></i></b>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-73740098825920992802013-12-19T16:08:00.000-08:002013-12-20T09:38:53.411-08:00Center for the Study of Individual Rights<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_XD-y9B1qt_1QaedPFw2fmr9EN9xCB00ZB5kniXVMzgvw16rH6TmILPDfp3x1IV1CU-DoVd4O4uNeA4WVXWFCF5i1S_I85AyAym5EfP-KbkVySGTFsH5jfcOFMB1FG3hq_o7nrWX1eVY/s1600/12-20-13+3.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_XD-y9B1qt_1QaedPFw2fmr9EN9xCB00ZB5kniXVMzgvw16rH6TmILPDfp3x1IV1CU-DoVd4O4uNeA4WVXWFCF5i1S_I85AyAym5EfP-KbkVySGTFsH5jfcOFMB1FG3hq_o7nrWX1eVY/s320/12-20-13+3.jpg" /></a><br />
<b>Center for the Study of Individual Rights</b><br />
Mike Adams<br />
12/19/2013 12:01:00 AM - Mike Adams<br />
<br />
Dear UNC Board of Governors: <br />
<br />
I appreciate very much the interest you have shown in meeting with me after my current case against UNC Wilmington heads to court in just a few months. I also appreciate the efforts of key members of the Senate to set up such a meeting now that Republicans control the NC Senate, State General Assembly, and the Governor's mansion. When we meet in the spring, I am going to present you with a specific proposal which will help start to reform the UNC system in three important ways: <br />
<br />
1) It will cut administrative overhead. <br />
<br />
2) It will reduce the amount of money the DNC is funneling through the system for political purposes. <br />
<br />
3) It will reopen debate on several key social issues that have not been debated in the UNC system for years (due to the university endorsement of one particular side of the issue). <br />
<br />
The need to cut administrative overhead is urgent. When I became a UNC professor, here at the Wilmington campus, there was only one administrator, the provost, who made over $100,000 per year. Within 15 years, the number of six-digit salary administrators skyrocketed to 153. Many of those new administrators were put in charge of offices meant to promote diversity. <br />
<br />
Unfortunately, in order to pay their salaries we had to increase tuition. Ironically, this meant that a lot of poor prospective students (disproportionately non-white) decided they could not afford to get a college education. The people who have truly experienced the "richness of diversity" are administrators who already have their PhDs. It is shameful hypocrisy. <br />
<br />
My plan will address this hypocrisy and reduce administrative overhead by replacing two university offices - and two corresponding sets of administrators - with just one. Accordingly, I am proposing that each UNC campus that has both a Women's Resource Center and an LGBT Office immediately shut down both of those offices and replace it with one. The new office will be called the Center for the Study of Individual Rights, or CSIR. Before I explain what the new CSIRs will do, let me first explain why the Women's Centers and LGBT Offices need to be closed. <br />
<br />
Many UNC Women's Centers have been operating for years as satellite political offices for the DNC. For example, the Women's Center at UNC-CH has actually been caught doing mass mailings in support of pending legislation with the use of university personnel and university computers. But most of the women's centers are a little more discreet. They simply endorse the broader positions of the DNC without actually endorsing specific legislation. <br />
<br />
Abortion is probably the best example of this tendency. Our own Women's Resource Center at UNC-Wilmington has consistently refused to promote crisis pregnancy centers on its website even when they have been asked. But Planned Parenthood always gets space on the WRC website. In 2012, the WRC even sold "I had an abortion" tee shirts to students who aborted their children. This was at an official WRC taxpayer funded event. It's pretty obvious that this government office officially endorses abortion. Well, so much for diversity of viewpoint. The debate on abortion is over. It’s time to implement the DNC agenda. <br />
<br />
The LGBT offices are worse, including the LGBTQIA Office here at UNC-Wilmington. By the way, the "I" is for "inter-sexed" and the "A" is for "allies." The word "allies" is the key because these people are engaged in a political war. By way of example, the UNCW office actually used state computers to send mass emails organizing a political campaign against Amendment One (which sought to ban gay marriage back in 2012). They squandered taxpayer dollars on their losing political battle during a deep state budget crisis. More importantly, they broke the law with impunity. <br />
<br />
We don't need these offices squandering tax dollars trying to pass legislation and implement policy on behalf of special interest groups. The job of the university is to promote debate over policy. That is where my proposed CSIRs come into the picture. <br />
<br />
The CSIRs will be cost effective because they won't do much and will only require a part time director and a part time administrative assistant - probably just a graduate assistant. The office will publish two newsletters per year. Each will contain eight essays - two opposing opinions on four controversial topics. The authors will be experts in their fields and will be drawn from universities all around the nation. The CSIRs will also host four debates per academic year. Each will focus on one important question. For the first year, I will propose debates on the following questions: <br />
<br />
1. Is marriage an individual constitutional right?<br />
<br />
2. How would legislation defining a "person" affect individual rights? <br />
<br />
3. Who does affirmative action help and who does it hurt: individuals or groups? <br />
<br />
4. What are the relative long term effects of amnesty on Hispanic, African, and Caucasian Americans? <br />
<br />
When we talk about same sex marriage, abortion, affirmative action, and amnesty for illegals we are bound to offend a lot of students. But that is the point. These students haven't been offended in years because they haven't heard a clash of dissenting opinions in years. <br />
<br />
The best part of this plan is that it will save the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars while replacing ideological conformity with reasoned debate. I'm currently examining the budgets of the centers I plan to close and comparing them with the budgets of my proposed CSIRs. I'll publish the detailed fiscal plan in a future column. <br />
<br />
In the meantime, count on the Women's Center saying that my plan to shut them down will deprive students of much needed services. But what services are they talking about? I know they set up tables on campus in order to teach students how to put a condom on a cucumber. But students learn that in the public high schools, long before they get to the public university. I know they sell candy covered vagina shaped lollipops on Valentine's Day. But students learn puerile vulgarity in middle school, long before they get to the public university. To be fair, I don't know of another place where students can buy "I had an abortion" tee shirts. Even Planned Parenthood had the good sense to stop doing that years ago. <br />
<br />
And count on the LGBTQIA Office to throw an even bigger hissy fit. They will insist that their orgasm awareness seminars are the intellectual climax of the semester. They'll also tout their occasional showings of controversial films – for example, "Breasts: A Documentary" - as indispensable educational services. But the university is located just three miles from Wrightsville Beach. Unlimited exposure to breasts is practically within walking distance. <br />
<br />
College students deserve better than this. They need an educational experience that is less expensive, less politicized, and less one-sided than the one they are getting in the UNC system. I'm not saying each individual has a right to a first-class education. But I do think the question is worthy of debate. <br />
__________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<b><i>To read another article by Mike Adams, <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/">click here.<br />
</a></i></b>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-92219932566397248832013-12-19T16:03:00.000-08:002013-12-23T20:28:57.743-08:00Duck Dynasty, Gay Activism, and the Clash of Two Cultures<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSrtJF7_3rCrKeP1WgCJz6tGdRzDVcrWjB2MMkyAu6Y5bqn_2rI6HOq1nZZtsrTQ6W3JE_sY8tSqTSKpKIrK2gPCyv6kI06hHDHzSWm0t5a9WTbRw3nNuYjgglheu6d5rNN7N8nQUpP6Q/s1600/12-19-13+11.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" closure_lm_677200="null" gua="true" height="163" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSrtJF7_3rCrKeP1WgCJz6tGdRzDVcrWjB2MMkyAu6Y5bqn_2rI6HOq1nZZtsrTQ6W3JE_sY8tSqTSKpKIrK2gPCyv6kI06hHDHzSWm0t5a9WTbRw3nNuYjgglheu6d5rNN7N8nQUpP6Q/s320/12-19-13+11.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<b>Gay Activism, Duck Dynasty, and the Clash of Two Cultures</b><br />
Michael Brown<br />
12/19/2013 9:05:00 AM - Michael Brown<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py6sEf5d92M">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py6sEf5d92M</a><br />
<br />
<strong>Video of Michael on Piers Morgan Show.</strong><br />
<br />
You knew it would happen sooner or later. An outspoken, wildly popular, conservative Christian who doesn’t give a hoot – or in this case, a quack – about political correctness would air his views about homosexuality, and overnight, Hollywood hell would break loose.<br />
<br />
To catch you up on the latest events, earlier this week, the text of Phil Robertson’s interview with GQ Magazine was released online, containing controversial comments about homosexual practice, among other things. (For those who have been living under a rock, Phil Robertson is the patriarch of the Duck Dynasty clan, and he is a self-proclaimed “Bible thumper.”)<br />
<br />
Shortly after the interview was released, and quite predictably, GLAAD issued a statement condemning Robertson’s remarks as “some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication” and said “his quote was littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation.” (Reminder: GLAAD officially stands for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, but I have long suggested that a more appropriate name would be the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement.)<br />
<br />
GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz said that, “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans -- and Americans -- who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors, who now need to re-examine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.” (Note to GLAAD: The majority of Louisianans do not support same-sex “marriage.”)<br />
<br />
This was followed by a clarification and apology of sorts by Robertson: “I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.<br />
<br />
“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”<br />
<br />
The Human Rights Campaign, the world’s largest gay activist organization, also condemned Robertson’s remarks and called for A&E, the cable network which airs Duck Dynasty, to take action: “The A+E Network should take immediate action to condemn Phil Robertson’s remarks and make clear they don’t support his views.”<br />
<br />
Later the same day, A&E issued its own statement: “We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”<br />
<br />
In support of Robertson, the Faith Driven Consumer Facebook page started an “I Stand with Phil“ campaign, while another Facebook page, “Boycott A&E Until Phil Robertson Is Put Back On Duck Dynasty,” had more than 100,000 Likes in a matter of hours. Talk about a clash of two cultures!<br />
<br />
What did Robertson actually say that was so controversial? <br />
<br />
First he remarked, “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”<br />
<br />
Was he accusing all (or most) gays of engaging in bestiality or of sleeping with multiple women? It appears not, although I can easily see why his critics would think otherwise, and in that context, he was right to clarify his comments.<br />
<br />
What he was saying, though, was that gay sex should be seen as part of the “anything goes” mentality of the sexual revolution of the 60s, and in that regard he was right. In fact, while gay activists emphasize homosexual identity, placing the gay rights movement in the context of the Civil Rights movement of the 60s, Robertson and other conservative Christians emphasize homosexual behavior, placing gay activism in the context of the sexual revolution of the same era.<br />
<br />
Robertson next quoted from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, a famous passage in Paul’s letters in which he clearly states that practicing homosexuals, along with practicing heterosexual sinners of various stripes, will not inherit God’s kingdom. (For the record, despite frequent objections to the contrary, the Greek text is quite clear in terms of its overall sense.) <br />
<br />
Was A&E genuinely unaware that he held to these views? I seriously doubt it. My guess is that they were just glad (not GLAAD) that he hadn’t aired them publicly.<br />
<br />
Finally, he suggested (speaking first for himself) that the female sexual organ was “more desirable” than a man’s rectum and that a woman had “more to offer” a man.<br />
<br />
And for these comments he was promptly suspended.<br />
<br />
The fact is, though, no matter how much two men may love each other, it remains indisputably clear that men were biologically designed to be with women, and vice versa. In that regard, no matter how crude Robertson’s comments may have been, they were correct. <br />
<br />
As for his quotation from 1 Corinthians 6, did anyone really think that Robertson would say, “You know, now that I’ve become a TV celebrity, I’m going to revise my views on God’s intent for human sexuality and marriage”?<br />
<br />
Personally, I don’t believe for a moment that Robertson will bow down to A&E and compromise his convictions, although I could see him offering a further clarification of his statements, explaining, for example, that he was not accusing homosexuals of practicing bestiality any more than heterosexuals engage in such perversion. <br />
<br />
And I don’t see how A&E can back down from their position regardless of how popular the show is. The gay lobby is far too powerful. (I imagine that Alec Baldwin has an opinion on this as well, although, to be clear, I am not comparing Robertson to Baldwin.)<br />
<br />
In fact, I don’t see either of them about to blink, which means that the culture wars are about to hit the fan, and this could very ugly very quickly.<br />
<br />
I suggest that those of us who agree fundamentally with Robertson make clear that: 1) We are unashamed of our belief in Jesus and in biblical morality. 2) We stand against the mistreatment of all people, including gays and lesbians. 3) We will not support the radical redefinition of marriage, regardless of the cost involved, nor do we see cultural capitulation to gay activism as inevitable.<br />
<br />
Now would be a perfect time to take a stand, but with grace, precision, and wisdom.<br />
________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<b><i>To read more on the subject, <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/2013/12/19/duck-dynasty-star-suspended-by-ae-for-his-religious-beliefs/">click here.</a></i></b>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-43197674018128762822013-12-18T18:40:00.001-08:002013-12-20T15:05:26.183-08:00The Government Can Now Force You to Bake a Cake<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBLzjR3kDHb8jbBRu6EMMTU3XvNd_SlRwvbqygFPCvhHEl_h3RgG5NRS-eLWvPY6ciJAL8wsiz6af35T15kOaaxWQtFADfV0ZAR75jkL_rTXr2iL4M3ijfkmBIjBE2zHiGTABdRKdhtvI/s1600/12-18-13+18.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" closure_lm_47640="null" gua="true" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBLzjR3kDHb8jbBRu6EMMTU3XvNd_SlRwvbqygFPCvhHEl_h3RgG5NRS-eLWvPY6ciJAL8wsiz6af35T15kOaaxWQtFADfV0ZAR75jkL_rTXr2iL4M3ijfkmBIjBE2zHiGTABdRKdhtvI/s320/12-18-13+18.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><b>The Government Can Now Force You to Bake a Cake</b><br />
Leslie Ford<br />
December 18, 2013 at 1:03 pm<br />
<br />
An administrative law judge in Denver, Colorado—a state that constitutionally defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman in 2006—has declared that Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, violated the law when he refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.<br />
<br />
When a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts asked Phillips to bake a cake for a reception celebrating their union back home in Colorado, Phillips declined on the basis of his faith: “I don’t feel like I can participate in their wedding, and when I do a cake, I feel like I am participating in their wedding.”<br />
<br />
After the American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop with the state for alleged violations of Colorado’s public accommodation law, Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled on December 6 against the bakery, <a href="https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf">concluding</a> that Phillips refused service to the couple “because of their sexual orientation.”<br />
<br />
Phillips objects to this characterization and <a href="http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/baker-says-hed-rather-go-to-jail-after-judge-orders-him-to-bake-cakes-for-g">responded</a> that that he would happily sell the couple his baked goods for any number of occasions, but baking a wedding cake would force him to express something that he does not believe.<br />
<br />
Phillips argues that he has a right to run his business in accord with his conscience:<br />
<br />
<i>The United States Constitution as well as the Colorado Constitution both protect my right to freely practice my religious beliefs while I am at my work.<br />
Americans do not need to leave their religious beliefs at the door to provide for their families.</i><br />
<br />
The decision against Masterpiece Cakeshop is another instance of state governments punishing people who believe that marriage is the union of man and woman. Wedding-related businesses are specifically at risk.<br />
<br />
Elaine Huguenin of New Mexico–based <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2013/08/22/same-sex-marriage-trumps-religious-liberty-in-new-mexico/">Elane Photography</a> is appealing to the Supreme Court for protection against the coercion of her artistic talents for declining to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. Last summer, an Oregon bakery, <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2013/09/05/intolerance-burns-out-oregon-bakers/">Sweet Cakes by Melissa</a>, was forced to shut its doors to evade fines for declining to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony. Washington state florist Barronelle Stutzman, owner of <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/17/penalizing-religious-belief-no-bed-of-roses/">Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts,</a> was fined $2,000 for running her business in accord with her religious beliefs, choosing not to design floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding.<br />
<br />
Federal and state governments should respect citizens’ fundamental freedoms. <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2013/09/19/protecting-religious-liberty-in-the-marriage-debate/">State policymakers</a> should make laws that protect the right of all American citizens to live out their beliefs where they work, when they speak, and when they serve others.<br />
___________________________________________<br />
<br />
<b><i>To read more about Gay's trampling on people's Religious freedoms, <a href="http://bcfoley.blogspot.com/2013/12/tolerance-now-means-government-coerced.html">click here.</a></i></b><br />
___________________________________________<br />
<br />
<b><i>But Hey! Living Gay is a sin! <a href="http://bclabjfoley.blogspot.com/2013/12/duck-dynasty-star-phil-robertson-makes.html">Click here.</a></i></b>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-31360149568884529012013-12-18T12:05:00.000-08:002013-12-18T12:08:17.179-08:00America’s Chief Export: Immorality<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKGDKIDc521X2q0ld8q-MR1TrL4ORvzXeBVN6QDE__XaHMwjH6hyphenhyphenKap4o3fiwweN0d7UQUEj4LsCW_NEBHXf0ZvLNg7CdVFJAWoKs2_ZwzZHL3GEDVVs5ipduvqeB4UP8m6yEBeNqHeq0/s1600/12-18-13+10.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="316" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKGDKIDc521X2q0ld8q-MR1TrL4ORvzXeBVN6QDE__XaHMwjH6hyphenhyphenKap4o3fiwweN0d7UQUEj4LsCW_NEBHXf0ZvLNg7CdVFJAWoKs2_ZwzZHL3GEDVVs5ipduvqeB4UP8m6yEBeNqHeq0/s320/12-18-13+10.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<strong>America’s Chief Export: Immorality</strong> <br />
<h5>
12/16/2013 12:01:00 AM - Matt Barber</h5>
<div class="article-ad-pull-left pull-left">
<div id="div-gpt-1399486469-0">
</div>
</div>
Why are Americans so peeved? <br />
<br />
Is it Obamacare? <br />
<br />
Well, partly – and in a big way. One wonders, in fact, if that sign language interpreter at the Mandela funeral moonlighted as the lead IT consultant for Healthcare.gov. <br />
<br />
But it’s much more than just Obamacare. How do we explain America’s red-level economic and socio-political misery index? <br />
<br />
Is it rising unemployment, or the shrinking economy? <br />
<br />
Is it explosive debt and deficits, or pervasive government eavesdropping? <br />
<br />
Is it the atrophy of individual liberty, or an unprecedented trampling of the First, Second, Fourth and nearly every other amendment to the U.S. Constitution? <br />
<br />
Finally, is it the systematic assault on natural marriage and family, or government sanctioning of mass infanticide? <br />
<br />
Yes. <br />
<br />
It’s all of these things and more. <br />
<br />
Still, these things are only symptomatic of a far greater problem. There remains a broader explanation, a definitive catalyst, for this, the domestic winter of our discontent – and, as so often happens, a mere 14 words from the Holy Scriptures better elucidates that catalyst than ream upon ream of opinion page copy. The words are these: <em><strong>“When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan” (Proverbs 29:2).</strong></em> <br />
<br />
America groans because the wicked rule. <br />
<br />
Indeed, under this president, America’s chief export has become immorality. Sexual deviancy, murder of the unborn, redistribution of wealth and other evils have been sanitized and propagandized as “basic human rights.” <br />
<br />
Thus, when this arrogant man stands before the U.N. and decries those nations that refuse to embrace his special brand of pagan relativism, we shouldn’t be surprised if those nations push back. <br />
And so they push back. <br />
<br />
To be sure, in addition to triggering our own spike in angst, Obama’s fevered push to “call evil good and good evil,” is likewise responsible for America’s snowballing marginalization across the globe. <br />
Under the tragic leadership of this “selfie”-centered narcissist, the United States, while never perfect, now looks less like Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” and more like the biblical Whore of Babylon. A nation that once stood alone as the world’s moral guidepost now leads the contemptible charge to infect our privileged planet with its own viral iniquities. <br />
And so the world pushes back. <br />
<br />
For instance, there has been, of late, great weeping and gnashing of teeth among mainstream media – and other circles of intolerant “tolerance” – over successful efforts by several foreign governments to stem the tide of “LGBT” propaganda within their own sovereign borders. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10513330/Vladimir-Putin-claims-Russia-is-moral-compass-of-the-world.html">Russia</a>, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/india-top-court-upholds-law-criminalising-gay-sex-052808646.html">India</a>, <a href="http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=1379">Croatia</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQpLbc0XeRI">Peru</a>, <a href="http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20131209/news/news2.html">Jamaica</a> and even <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25344219">Australia</a>, for instance, along with other nations, are now moving to inoculate themselves from the fast-metastasizing cancer of sexual relativism. <br />
Having witnessed, from afar, the poisonous results of such propaganda here in the U.S. (the hyper-sexualization of children, the deconstruction of natural marriage and family, the rampant spread of sexually transmitted disease, religious persecution and the like), there seems an emerging global recognition that the radical “LGBT” agenda – a pet cause of Obama’s – is not about securing “human rights,” but, rather, is about promulgating moral wrongs. <br />
<br />
The world is finding that forcing others to “tolerate” – indeed, to celebrate – unfettered licentiousness, under penalty of law, is as harmful to society as is said licentiousness to those who practice it. <br />
<br />
The world has looked to America’s moral leadership and found it wanting. The climate under Obama has gotten so bad, in fact, that Russian leader Vladimir Putin feels emboldened to claim for Russia the mantle of world moral leader – a proud distinction hitherto held by the good ol’ USA. <br />
<br />
The Daily Mail reports that, in his state of the nation address, “Putin sought to cast Russia as the moral arbiter of the world on Thursday, as he hit out at America’s ‘non-traditional values’ and its influence across the world.” <br />
<br />
Russia has barred “LGBT” and other sexual anarchist propaganda. <br />
<br />
“Mr Putin defended his government’s increasingly conservative values,” continued the report, “and decried the ‘review of norms of morality’ in the West and elsewhere. <br />
<br />
“‘This destruction of traditional values from above not only entails negative consequences for society, but is also inherently anti-democratic because it is based on an abstract notion and runs counter to the will of the majority of people,’ Mr Putin said, adding there could be no benefit for society for treating ‘good and evil’ equally.” <br />
<br />
How sad that the leader of an atheist government, in a country where tens of millions have died under Marxism – another of Obama’s pet causes – could out-Christian our once-Christian nation. <br />
Meanwhile, the tiny nation of Jamaica is among hundreds more that are likewise feeling the squeeze from both the Obama administration and allied “LGBT” pressure groups. They’re pushing for unrestrained sexual license in that Caribbean state as well. <br />
<br />
According to a Jamaican newspaper, <a href="http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20131209/news/news2.html">The Gleaner,</a> Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, recently spoke at a pro-family conference there. LaBarbera “encouraged Jamaicans to be grounded in their Christian beliefs and not to be lured by other countries in repealing the buggery (sodomy) law.” <br />
<br />
“The United States has no business lecturing anybody about sexual morality,” he observed. “America has rampant abortions, rampant promiscuity, and I stand wholeheartedly with Jamaicans and encourage you all to hold to your beliefs,” he said. <br />
<br />
“The moral clarity of my kind, pro-family hosts was refreshing, and something we in the United States need to learn from and take heart from,” <a href="http://americansfortruth.com/2013/12/10/aftah-urges-jamaicans-not-to-bend-to-united-statese-u-pressure-on-buggery-law/">said LaBarbera</a> upon his return. “I told them, The United States government has nothing to teach you about sexual morality, but you have much to teach us!” <br />
<br />
“We are all watching Jamaica to see what happens,” he concluded, “and I believe if Jamaica can stand up and not bow to the pressure, you can be an example to the world. There is no need to follow anybody,” LaBarbera encouraged. <br />
<br />
Indeed, there is certainly no need to follow America. Not on this. Fewer nations are buying what we’re selling. They’ve placed an embargo on our chief export. <br />
<br />
While America may be lost (though I pray not), it would seem that her traditional values – values still shared by many, if not most, of the American people – are, nonetheless, gaining momentum abroad. <br />
And that <em>is</em> encouraging. <br />
<br />
Now let’s pray those values come full circle. <br />
______________________________________________<br />
<br />
<b><i>To read another article by Matt Barber, <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2013/12/01/did-george-washington-predict-americas-fall-n1755791">click here.</a></i></b>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-87093884432608257972013-12-18T11:19:00.002-08:002013-12-18T11:24:55.709-08:00CO Sheriff: Gun control laws ‘hurt law-abiding citizens’<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdV9TVppjzfd4kRfRxQoq0SNS6aPM2o4J9dfPlFtx8C9NyZKdgdVXbaR1GTFiOWIfs9nmvas5e37Yg38UBpTf4l4wqHluDzEhInaYXAqxvySTqu0p8JmusFoo8uzOxGTBfDA0BEKiWPWs/s1600/12-18-13+8.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdV9TVppjzfd4kRfRxQoq0SNS6aPM2o4J9dfPlFtx8C9NyZKdgdVXbaR1GTFiOWIfs9nmvas5e37Yg38UBpTf4l4wqHluDzEhInaYXAqxvySTqu0p8JmusFoo8uzOxGTBfDA0BEKiWPWs/s320/12-18-13+8.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<h1 class="title">
CO Sheriff: Gun control laws ‘hurt law-abiding citizens’ </h1>
<div class="caption brdb">
</div>
<div class="byline">
<span class="byline-italic">By:</span> <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/author/tmull/">Teresa Mull</a> <br />
<span class="byline-italic">12/18/2013 06:00 AM</span></div>
<div class="the-content">
<div class="atclear">
</div>
Colorado is a curious place. It went blue for Obama both in the 2008 and 2012 elections, but when it comes to gun control, the Rocky Mountain state definitely does not have the president’s agenda in its sights.<br />
<br />
John Cooke has been sheriff of Weld County for 11 years. His family moved to the area in the 1860s. He told <i>Human Events</i> exclusively, “I never thought I would see Colorado make marijuana legal and try to make guns illegal.”<br />
<br />
New laws in CO mandate universal background checks and ban magazines that carry more than 15 rounds. Cooke and the majority of his fellow sheriffs (55 of 62 total) in the state say they won’t be enforcing these laws.<br />
<br />
Both laws, Cooke says, “are going to turn law-abiding citizens into criminals.”<br />
<br />
“Basically, the magazine ban says that any magazine that can be readily converted to hold more than 15 rounds is illegal,” Cooke explained. “Almost every single magazine has a removable base plate, and so just about every magazine can be converted to hold more rounds than the 15, which means everybody who owns a 15 round magazine is basically committing a crime.”<br />
<br />
“These laws are vague,” Sheriff Cooke said, “They’re really ineffective and they’re unenforceable.”<br />
Moreover, Cooke believes the laws “hurt law-abiding citizens.”<br />
<br />
“If you want to lend your rifle to a neighbor or to a friend because he’s going on a hunting trip, after three days, that’s illegal,” Cooke said. “If you want to lend your 17 round magazine to your wife, if you go on a business trip and you give your wife the gun for self-defense, well now she’s a criminal, because the magazines have to be in your continuous possession.”<br />
<br />
Both new gun control laws were passed in Colorado after the Sandy Hook shooting in Connecticut and the Aurora Theatre shooting in Colorado last year.<br />
<br />
“These laws,” Cooke said, “would not have done anything to stop Newtown and they wouldn’t have stopped the Aurora Theatre shooting. They’re feel-good laws because they have to do something. They were knee-jerk reactions to [two] tragedies.”<br />
<br />
Sheriff Cooke believes that making guns “more readily available to law-abiding citizens” will help to decrease violence.<br />
“There’s a reason why our nighttime ho<br />
me invasion occurrences are so much lower than in Europe,” Cooke said. “The FBI stats have shown since 1992, the violent crime rate has dropped by almost 50 percent, but yet we continue to sell guns at about 3 million a year. I think there’s a coloration there.”<br />
<br />
“These gun laws are not going to do anything to make this state safer,” Cooke went on. “If anything, I think they could hinder public safety.”<br />
<br />
Cooke said he’s always been of the mind that “an armed society is a polite society,” and now, Coloradans are backing him.<br />
<br />
The public reaction, according to Cooke, has been “overwhelmingly in favor of our stance.”<br />
Cooke explained that as a sheriff, he’s an “independent elected official. We don’t report to anybody but the public. I don’t report to the commissioners, I don’t report to the mayor, or to the attorney general. They can’t tell us what to do and the only ones that we represent are the public.”<br />
<br />
Cooke told the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/us/sheriffs-refuse-to-enforce-laws-on-gun-control.html" target="_blank"><em>New York Times</em></a>: “In my oath it says I’ll uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Colorado. It doesn’t say I have to uphold every law passed by the Legislature.”<br />
<br />
Cooke said he’s witnessed many Coloradans “pushing back” and stocking up on guns and ammo “while they still can.” In Colorado, only the sheriff can issue concealed weapons permits. Cooke said he used to average about 150 permits per month, but after Obama came out with his list of <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/list-executive-actions-obama-plans-to-take-as-part-anti-gun-violence-plan/" target="_blank">23 executive actions to stop gun violence</a>, that number spiked to about 500 permit applications per month.<br />
<br />
“People have a right to be concerned,” Cooke said.<br />
<br />
Colorado voters have a pro-gun track record. <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/2013/09/09/colorado-recall-elections-have-nation-interested/" target="_blank">Earlier this year</a>, voters recalled Senate President John Morse (D) of Colorado Springs and State Senator Angela Giron (D) of Pueblo for passing legislation <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/2013/09/11/coloradans-say-no-to-gun-control/" target="_blank">imposing stricter gun laws</a>.<br />
<br />
“It’s not a Republican/Democrat issue,” Cooke said. “It sends a message to the rest of the country, and it’s been heard in Washington, D.C. When we can recall the president of the senate in a Democrat district, a Hispanic female in a Hispanic district, that sets the tone and national legislators will think twice about trying to make ridiculous federal gun control laws.”<br />
<br />
<em>Teresa Mull is the managing editor of Human Events. </em><br />
<em>______________________________________________</em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em><strong>To read more about gun control, <a href="http://bcfoley.blogspot.com/2013/12/colorado-shooting-over-in-80-seconds.html">click here.</a></strong></em></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-77471663449679028122013-12-18T11:00:00.000-08:002013-12-18T11:07:49.877-08:00Silencing Conservatives - the Administration's latest attempt to censor political speech<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBQF5hEYMpawKrLBgN3IQ0H-YsnnNzA8RaJWVkuLlNWyo4FYQuJEmDoe0viXEInWONTo_tWW7bUrEGP1XnCzMgY5fj4gGZXJC9XsaqksgsLWsh77nWRPqJZxGDmkjHeINqGJhyVmMoHyQ/s1600/12-18-13+12+(1).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBQF5hEYMpawKrLBgN3IQ0H-YsnnNzA8RaJWVkuLlNWyo4FYQuJEmDoe0viXEInWONTo_tWW7bUrEGP1XnCzMgY5fj4gGZXJC9XsaqksgsLWsh77nWRPqJZxGDmkjHeINqGJhyVmMoHyQ/s320/12-18-13+12+(1).jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<b>Silencing Conservatives – the Administration’s latest attempt to censor political speech</b><br />
By: Hans von Spakovsky <br />
12/18/2013 06:00 AM<br />
<br />
On Nov. 29, when Americans were with their families giving thanks for the founding of our great nation, the Obama administration quietly unveiled its latest attempt to silence the political opposition to a mostly-empty Washington.<br />
<br />
As if the indefensible attack on Tea Party and other conservative organizations documented by the IRS Inspector General wasn’t enough, the IRS is now proposing <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/11/29/2013-28492/guidance-for-tax-exempt-social-welfare-organizations-on-candidate-related-political-activities">new regulations</a> that would further restrict the activity of these organizations and give IRS officials even more power to intimidate – sorry,<em> regulate</em> – them. This is, of course, the exact opposite of what should be done to reverse the politicized targeting that IRS bureaucrats have been engaged in.<br />
<br />
The proposed regulation would redefine what the IRS considers “candidate-related political activity” for §501(c)(4) organizations. It is a thinly veiled attempt to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html">Citizens United</a> by executive fiat, after the administration failed in a similar attempt when it couldn’t get the DISCLOSE Act passed by Congress. The regulation would seriously infringe the First Amendment rights of advocacy organizations.<br />
<br />
The vast majority of advocacy organizations don’t apply for charitable status under §501(c)(3) of the tax code, under which donations are tax deductible, which is available for religious institutions, art museums, and the like. Instead, organizations such as the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club apply for tax-exempt status under §501(c)(4), which simply exempts them from paying income taxes on the donations they receive from their members (donations the members have already paid taxes on and which are not tax deductible). The statute passed by Congress says that §501(c)(4) governs “civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.”<br />
<br />
When it comes to political activity, §501(c)(3) charitable organizations are by statute not allowed to “participate in, or intervene” in the political campaign of any candidate. However, despite the fact that there is no such equivalent ban in the statutory definition of §501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations, starting in 1959, the IRS imposed such a restriction by regulation without the authority to do so.<br />
<br />
Under that regulation, a §501(c)(4)such as the NRA can engage in political activity as long as that activity does not constitute the primary engagement or purpose of the organization. In other words, as long as its “candidate-related political activity” is less than 50 percent of what it does, an organization can keep its tax-exempt status.<br />
<br />
The current IRS regulation is so broad and ill-defined that the IRS applies a “facts and circumstances” test to determine what constitutes “political activity” by an organization. This test can vary greatly depending on the subjective views of the particular IRS bureaucrat applying the test. IRS employees took advantage of this vague and subjective standard to unfairly delay granting tax-exempt status to Tea Party organizations and subject them to unreasonable scrutiny.<br />
<br />
But the new proposed regulation would make things even worse. It suffers from a crucial defect: the assumption by the IRS that engaging in political speech and political activity do not “promote social welfare.” We live in a society in which an all-too-powerful federal government regulates almost every facet of Americans’ lives, businesses, and property. Membership organizations such as the NRA or NARAL have to participate in the political life of the nation if they want to advance the particular issues their members care about. As former FEC Chairman Brad Smith says, “What kind of democracy claims that political participation is not in the interest of ‘social welfare’?”<br />
<br />
Another fundamental mistake with the proposed regulation is its sweeping view of “candidate-related political activity.” This would include nonpartisan voter registration and get-out-the vote drives as well as voter guides and hosting of candidate debates or meet-the-candidate events.<br />
<br />
What is partisan about inviting the candidates in a particular election to a debate to discuss their views on the issues of interest to an organization’s members? How is an organization supposed to educate its members if it can’t provide them with a voter guide that lists an officeholder’s votes on bills affecting the particular issues the organization is organized around?<br />
<br />
As long as the organization is not engaging in express advocacy — that is, telling its members who to vote for or against — it should be able to engage in all of these activities without penalty. Doing so promotes “social welfare” by educating the public on important issues and encouraging basic civic participation, an essential ingredient in maintaining a health democracy.<br />
<br />
Finally, the proposed regulation very unsubtly tries to impose a new rule that the Supreme Court already found unconstitutional in Citizens United v. FEC. One issue in that case was a federal campaign finance rule that prohibited labor unions and corporations – both profit and nonprofit – from running any broadcast ad that “refers to a clearly identified” federal candidate within 30 days of a federal primary or 60 days of the general election. The problem with this provision was that it banned pure grassroots lobbying ads that had nothing to do with an election.<br />
<br />
If, for example, Congress scheduled a vote on an abortion bill two weeks out from the November election, both NARAL and Americans United for Life Action would be prohibited from running an ad asking people to call specific senators to vote for or against the bill if those senators were up for reelection. Such an ad about a legislative issue has nothing to do with the senator’s reelection, yet the First Amendment rights of these organizations and their members to speak on an issue important to them were stilled.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court quite properly found this 30/60-day provision unconstitutional, since it suppressed speech “in the realm where its necessity is most evident: in the public dialogue preceding a real election” when Congress tends to schedule lots of votes.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court also found that the regulation the FEC had promulgated on whether political speech was “candidate-related” was unconstitutional. The FEC determined if a communication was the “functional equivalent of express advocacy” even if it did not directly call for a vote for or against a candidate if it was “susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against” a candidate.<br />
<br />
In essence, the complex regulation the FEC implemented to apply this definition required a speaker to “ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak” if it wanted to avoid “threats of criminal liability and the heavy costs of defending against FEC enforcement.” Therefore, it violated the First Amendment as an onerous “ongoing chill upon speech” that was the “equivalent of prior restraint…analogous to licensing laws implemented in 16th- and 17th- century England, laws and governmental practices of the sort that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit.”<br />
<br />
Yet the IRS is proposing to implement the exact same language the Supreme Court found unconstitutional. It defines as “candidate-related political activity” a communication “within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election that refers to one or more clearly identified candidates.”<br />
<br />
It even repeats the confusing language from the FEC regulation that the Supreme Court threw out about candidate advocacy including any communication “susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than a call” for a vote for against a candidate – and the definition of candidate is so broad that it would include nominees, not just political candidates. This would effectively bar discussion of the president’s nominations, such as his controversial judicial nominees to the D.C. Court of Appeals.<br />
<br />
Not surprisingly, none of these new rules would apply to unions, which are the backbone of the voter registration and get-out-the vote activities of the president’s political party. But advocacy groups of all political persuasions should protest this proposed IRS regulation. It is aimed at chilling political speech and political activity.<br />
<br />
Alexis de Tocqueville said that when Americans “want to proclaim a truth or propagate some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form an association.” Such associations are critical to the First Amendment ecosystem; citizens use them not only to assert their views and opinions under the protection of the First Amendment, but also to try to advance the social welfare of the country. To their shame, the IRS and the Obama administration are taking steps that would thwart that.<br />
<br />
<i>Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org) and is a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission.</i><br />
<em>___________________________________________________</em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em><strong>To read more about government's removal of free speech, <a href="http://bcfoley.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-coddling-of-college-hate-crime.html">click here.</a></strong></em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-9345069235539211272013-12-17T21:00:00.000-08:002013-12-17T21:05:21.289-08:00"Tolerance" Now Means Government-Coerced Celebration<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4pzaavbheZl-i9vHzyUafOJTVRreh4J2Ud8o_Z-IpvIiK-9IE_HFOLqMFJfVER7M2HAD58mRBybnfNS20EfKI0uR9Y7rfBUw_3IwFOWzrCCbAOWuCp-qx6sOkIk8T3LVbhY1ODXEMBUE/s1600/12-17-13+19+Gay+Boys.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" closure_lm_692841="null" gua="true" height="163" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4pzaavbheZl-i9vHzyUafOJTVRreh4J2Ud8o_Z-IpvIiK-9IE_HFOLqMFJfVER7M2HAD58mRBybnfNS20EfKI0uR9Y7rfBUw_3IwFOWzrCCbAOWuCp-qx6sOkIk8T3LVbhY1ODXEMBUE/s320/12-17-13+19+Gay+Boys.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><b>"Tolerance" Now Means Government-Coerced Celebration</b><br />
Dennis Prager<br />
12/17/2013 12:01:00 AM - Dennis Prager<br />
<br />
Jack Phillips owns the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., about 10 miles from downtown Denver. In July 2012, two gay men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, asked Phillips to provide the cake for their wedding celebration. Though same-sex marriage is not allowed in Colorado -- the Colorado Constitution states that "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state" -- the two men had been married in Massachusetts. <br />
<br />
As acknowledged by all parties, Phillips told the men, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings." <br />
<br />
Jack Phillips is an evangelical Christian, and his religion does not allow him to participate in same-sex marriages or celebrations of same-sex marriages. <br />
<br />
In other words, Phillips made it clear from the outset that he does not discriminate based on the sexual orientation of a prospective customer. He will knowingly sell his products to any gay person who wishes to purchase his baked goods. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, Craig and Mullins went to the ACLU, which then sued Phillips. On Dec. 6, administrative law Judge Robert N. Spencer handed down his decision: <br />
<br />
"The undisputed facts show that Respondents [Masterpiece Cakeshop] discriminated against Complainants [Craig and Mullins] because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage, in violation of ? 24-34-601(2), C.R.S." <br />
<br />
The section of the C.R.S. (Colorado Revised Statutes) cited by Judge Spencer reads: <br />
<br />
"It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of ... sexual orientation ... the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation." <br />
<br />
Thus, under penalty of fines and, potentially, jail: <br />
<br />
1. Jack Phillips must participate in an event that the Colorado constitution explicitly prohibits. <br />
<br />
2. He must do so against deeply held religious convictions. <br />
<br />
3. He must do so despite the fact that there are hundreds of other cake makers in the Denver area. <br />
<br />
Those who support this decision argue that religious principles do not apply here: What if, for example, someone's religious principles prohibited interracial marriages? Should that individual be allowed to deny services to an interracial wedding? <br />
<br />
Of course not. <br />
<br />
Here's why that objection is irrelevant: <br />
<br />
1. No religion practiced in America -- indeed, no world religion -- has ever banned interracial marriage. That some American Christians opposed interracial marriage is of no consequence. No one assumes that every position held by any member of a religion means that the religion holds that position. <br />
<br />
2. If opposition to same-sex marriage is not a legitimately held religious conviction, there is no such thing as a legitimately held religious position. Unlike opposition to interracial marriage, opposition to same-sex marriage has been the position of every religion in recorded history -- as well as of every country and every American state until the 21st century. <br />
<br />
3. The Colorado baker made it clear to the gay couple -- as acknowledged by the court -- that he would be happy to bake and sell cakes to these gay men any other time they wanted. Therefore, he is not discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation. He readily sells to people he knows to be gay. What he is unwilling to do is to participate in an (SET ITAL) event (END ITAL) that he opposes for legitimate religious reasons. Until, at the most, 10 years ago, no one would have imagined that a person could be forced to provide goods or services for a same-sex wedding. <br />
<br />
4. If a baker refused on religious grounds to provide the wedding cake for a polygamous wedding, should the state force him to do so? If a baker refused to provide a cake to a heterosexual couple that was celebrating living together without getting married, should the state force him to? <br />
<br />
Some years ago, Jonah Goldberg wrote a bestseller titled "Liberal Fascism." If you think that title is an exaggeration, read the book. Or just watch what liberals are doing to those who oppose same-sex marriage. <br />
<br />
<b>In the name of tolerance, the left is eroding liberty in America.</b><br />
_____________________________________________<br />
<br />
<b><i>To read another article by Dennis Prager, <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2013/12/10/creators-oped-n1760233">click here.</a></i></b> <br />
_____________________________________________<br />
<br />
<b><i>To read a related article, <a href="http://bcfoley.blogspot.com/2013/12/next-up-force-churches-to-perform-gay_15.html">click here.</a></i></b>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-75009456422791841142013-12-17T20:53:00.001-08:002013-12-17T20:54:50.835-08:005 Things Obamacare Teaches You About Liberals<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9UmJ8XuydH6bnqkw_eSdCzWv9Ygqi_eJB0jbfx7YlOxqpsLeZ5DOny1PsK0LvTl5K2xghB8vczB8Hdf3fBEEpqYc8V7vy51C-C82rLwgYJyYDJFHlfiyulewWNq2TzAjCTtwtICDc3PE/s1600/12-17-13+9.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" closure_lm_108661="null" dua="true" height="308" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9UmJ8XuydH6bnqkw_eSdCzWv9Ygqi_eJB0jbfx7YlOxqpsLeZ5DOny1PsK0LvTl5K2xghB8vczB8Hdf3fBEEpqYc8V7vy51C-C82rLwgYJyYDJFHlfiyulewWNq2TzAjCTtwtICDc3PE/s320/12-17-13+9.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><b>5 Things Obamacare Teaches You About Liberals</b><br />
John Hawkins<br />
12/17/2013 12:01:00 AM - John Hawkins<br />
<br />
<b>1) It's inherently dishonest:</b> In many ways, Obamacare is a typical liberal program. Unfortunately for Barack Obama, there are two key differences. The first is that the Affordable Care Act was implemented on a short enough timetable for people to remember the promises that were made about it. Furthermore, because it is such an enormous program, it impacts a lot more lives. Otherwise, it's a standard liberal program that makes promises it never intends to keep and does more damage than good. Liberal programs usually have huge, yet very predictable downsides that are systematically hidden, ignored and downplayed because liberal ideas can't survive an educated, honest debate about whether they work or not. <br />
<br />
<b>2) Results are irrelevant:</b> Barack Obama promised that if you like your insurance, you can keep it. He said the same thing about your doctor. He claimed Obamacare would REDUCE the cost of health care, save the average person money and provide universal coverage. Not only are all of those promises untrue, it's hard to miss the fact that no one on the Left SEEMS TO CARE. That's because whether Obamacare actually works or not is secondary to left-wing goals like centralizing government power, gaining more control over the American people and making liberals feel good about themselves. This is the rule, not the exception when it comes to liberals. Put another way, whether a liberal supports a program doesn't have anything to do with whether it works or not. <br />
<br />
<b>3) It penalizes success:</b> Contrary to what you'd believe if you listen to the Left, 85% of Americans were perfectly happy with their insurance before the Affordable Care Act came along. Yet because of Obamacare, tens of millions of those people are going to lose their health insurance and most of them will pay more. In other words, our health care system was working just fine for the vast majority of Americans until Barack Obama took a wrecking ball to it. So, in order to help a relatively small number of people, liberals are perfectly willing to penalize Americans -- who worked hard, played by the rules and took care of themselves -- with much higher costs and lost plans. This is standard operating procedure for liberals who act as if doing well enough to live your life free of welfare, food stamps and government nannies is "cheating." <br />
<br />
<b>4) It doesn't work:</b> A hammer is a good tool to use for pounding nails. It's not such a great tool to use in place of a screwdriver, saw or wrench. Government can be a good tool as well when it's used for the limited purposes for which it’s designed -- such as putting up street signs, building roads and forming a military to protect us from other nations. The problem with liberals is that they want to use their government hammer for every task imaginable instead of letting the free market provide the right tool for the job. You think a billing dispute with an insurance company is unpleasant? Wait until you're hashing it out with the IRS. You don't like to deal with your insurance company? Wait until you have a problem with your insurance and can't get it corrected until you get approval from a government agent. Our government is slow, stupid, arrogant and generally unfriendly to consumers. The more government you have in your life, the more unpleasant your life is likely to be. <br />
<br />
<b>5) There are no trade-offs:</b> Liberals seem to be incapable of mentally comprehending trade-offs. So instead, they present Utopian visions of how life would look in a perfect world and offer that up as a political alternative to the messy, oftentimes unpleasant reality we live in. It would be fantastic if Santa Claus, Star Trek replicators, and genies were real, but when you seek heaven on earth, you're more likely to start wandering towards hell. <br />
_____________________________________________<br />
<br />
<b><i>To read another article by John Hawkins, <a href="http://bcfoley.blogspot.com/2013/06/20-reasons-i-detest-government.html">click here.</a></i></b>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-73397537123988565252013-12-17T20:44:00.002-08:002013-12-17T20:46:38.412-08:00A TRUE STORY ABOUT GEN McCrystal's resignation in Obama's office<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiob252f0aqTZimRQA86ETzvX0vo5iUKVuH2wyjAe0ObEHfwpkswAtqKTMIZ36CsLmc3THzk4CseIGFaFjpTIoFQ14aT81LiTt5WHOcqzzGTkUPN8WwSoULL06SAfTZ3-RhLfq5QYcHFJE/s1600/12-17-13+Gen+Stanley+McChrystal.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" closure_lm_875888="null" dua="true" height="258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiob252f0aqTZimRQA86ETzvX0vo5iUKVuH2wyjAe0ObEHfwpkswAtqKTMIZ36CsLmc3THzk4CseIGFaFjpTIoFQ14aT81LiTt5WHOcqzzGTkUPN8WwSoULL06SAfTZ3-RhLfq5QYcHFJE/s320/12-17-13+Gen+Stanley+McChrystal.bmp" width="320" /></a></div><b>A TRUE STORY ABOUT GEN McCrystal's resignation in Obama's office</b> <br />
<br />
Worth reading from Gen McCrystal's book! <br />
<br />
<b>NEVER STAND IN LINE AGAIN</b> (Gen. Stanley McCrystal ) <br />
<br />
Some men carry and handle their diplomacy better than others........<br />
<br />
When former U.S. Military commander in Afghanistan , Stanley McChrystal, was called into the Oval Office by Barack Obama, he knew things weren't going to go well when the President accused him of not supporting him in his political role as President. "It's not my job to support you as a politician, Mr. President, it's my job to support you as Commander-in-Chief," McChrystal replied, and he handed Obama his resignation.<br />
<br />
Not satisfied with accepting McChrystal's resignation the President made a cheap parting shot. <b>"I bet when I die you'll be happy to pee on my grave."</b> The General saluted. "Mr. President, I always told myself after leaving the Army I'd never stand in line again."Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-84013308766319652592013-12-16T11:32:00.003-08:002013-12-16T11:36:57.853-08:00The highly inconvenient Arapahoe High School shooter <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUX7SAffBSrUXmrbeErkmZ6_DtBOkIkZnnbnGRfmceldAn9LjqbkMVewHQUO2x3D20gd2yQx_JMHlEew_BQhTR1fubrhQDGFZfITy3bEyUeAB6cbqpmgskD7zAIEwbvFtxBfjt0JMiwRo/s1600/karl_pierson%5B1%5D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUX7SAffBSrUXmrbeErkmZ6_DtBOkIkZnnbnGRfmceldAn9LjqbkMVewHQUO2x3D20gd2yQx_JMHlEew_BQhTR1fubrhQDGFZfITy3bEyUeAB6cbqpmgskD7zAIEwbvFtxBfjt0JMiwRo/s320/karl_pierson%5B1%5D.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<b>The highly inconvenient Arapahoe High School shooter<br />
</b>By: John Hayward <br />
12/16/2013 09:48 AM<br />
<br />
All of a sudden, the left-wing media doesn’t think the political views of a crazed gunman are worth discussing. Under the media rules of engagement set forth after the Tucson shooting in 2011, we should be having a huge national conversation about the Left-Wing Climate of Hate right now, and asking how the bitter personal attacks favored by leftists – who are currently fond of asserting that anyone who disagrees with President Barack Obama is a subhuman racist monster – drove student Karl Pierson, 18, of Colorado to attack the Arapahoe High School, critically injuring a fellow student before killing himself. Every American should be asking how Pierson’s devotion to socialism and communism led him to violence. MSNBC hosts should be flogging themselves live on the air for their role in creating the Climate of Hate that led to this outburst of youthful violence, citing their own words from 2011 to explain why they must be held to account.<br />
<br />
Of course, instead of putting Pierson’s outspoken political views in the headlines – as they most assuredly would, if it was even remotely possible to link him to conservative causes or the Tea Party – the media is burying this aspect of the story, and rather swiftly losing interest in talking about Pierson at all. The <em>Denver Post</em> actually stealth-edited their story to quietly remove the word “socialist,” changing this sentence:<br />
<br />
Thomas Conrad, who had an economics class with the gunman, described him as a <strong>very opinionated Socialist.</strong><br />
<br />
… to read as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
Thomas Conrad, who had an economics class with Pierson, described him as <strong>very opinionated.</strong><br />
<br />
The headline to the<a href="http://twitchy.com/2013/12/14/denver-post-scrubs-socialist-from-profile-of-arapahoe-shooter/"> <em>Denver Post</em></a> article declares, “Arapaho High Gunman Held Strong Political Beliefs, Classmates Said.” Not until the end of the story do you get any idea as to what those beliefs might have been:<br />
<br />
In one Facebook post, Pierson attacks the philosophies of economist Adam Smith, who through his invisible-hand theory pushed the notion that the free market was self-regulating. In another post, he describes himself as “Keynesian.”<br />
<br />
“I was wondering to all the neoclassicals and neoliberals, why isn’t the market correcting itself?” he wrote. “If the invisible hand is so strong, shouldn’t it be able to overpower regulations?”<br />
<br />
Wow, that’s some scintillating, hard-hitting logic right there. The Invisible Hand can’t “overpower regulations,” because the regulators have guns, kid. But the Invisible Hand most certainly can play merry hell with the big plans of regulators, as anyone following the collapse of ObamaCare should understand by now.<br />
<br />
Pierson also appears to mock Republicans on another Facebook post, writing “you republicans are so cute” and posting an image that reads: <strong>“The Republican Party: Health Care: Let ‘em Die, Climate Change: Let ‘em Die, Gun Violence: Let ‘em Die, Women’s Rights: Let ‘em Die, More War: Let ‘em </strong><strong>Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?”</strong><br />
<br />
The <em><a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303932504579258820517724030">Wall Street Journal</a> </em>adds a fellow student’s recollection that Pierson “once wore a shirt emblazoned with the letters U.S.S.R. and described himself as a communist.” I wonder if we’ll learn which faculty members took Pierson under their wings and nourished his dreary closed-minded liberal views. We’ve heard quite a few stories lately from across the nation about left-wing teachers using their classrooms as captive audiences for political diatribes that sounded quite a bit like young Mr. Pierson’s views.<br />
<br />
Somehow the school’s debate coach and librarian, Tracy Murphy, decided the debate team could do without this sharp and insightful political analysis, and gave Pierson a demotion. This led Pierson to “half-jokingly threaten to kill Mr. Murphy,” according to a teammate quoted by the <em><a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/active-shooter-situation-arapahoe-high-school-denver-police-article-1.1547140#ixzz2nO6paRXc">New York Daily News</a>.</em> This led to Pierson’s temporary suspension from the debate team (but apparently not from the school, as early reports had it.) He evidently thought the suspension would interfere with his plans to go to the Air Force Academy, so he wound up marching into the school with a shotgun, a machete, and some Molotov cocktails – sounds like his studies of Communism were quite thorough – screaming Murphy’s name. Murphy has been praised for attempting to lead the gunman out of the school and away from endangered students, but alas Pierson still shot a randomly-selected girl in the face before turning the gun on himself.<br />
<br />
The gun angle is powerfully inconvenient for the Left, too. The <em>Denver Post </em>coyly relates a student saying Pierson “had very strong beliefs about gun laws and stuff,” but doesn’t bother to inform readers of what those strong beliefs might have been. It falls to the UK <em><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523964/Colorado-gunman-Karl-Pierson-criticized-firearms-laws-opened-school.html">Daily Mail</a> </em>to tell us that he “seemingly supported gun control.” It doesn’t seem like it would be that difficult to find out exactly where he stood on the issue, seeing as how he was so outspoken, and his stance on gun legislation was so strong. The fact that no media outlets seem interested in clarifying the matter speaks volumes.<br />
As for the gun Pierson used in the assault, it was a shotgun – the preferred weapon of Vice President Joe Biden, who has often <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/11/joe-biden-insults-gun-owners/">gone on the record</a> with his support for the legal purchase of such firearms for use in self defense. Next to hunting rifles, shotguns are the weapons gun-control enthusiasts most commonly promise they will never, ever, ever try to take away. Pierson bought his shotgun legally, although of course he was violating all sorts of laws by bringing it to the school and employing it during an assault. Colorado passed a boatload of new gun control laws earlier this year, following the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, leading to political upheaval that resulted in the <a href="http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/10/20421919-two-colorado-lawmakers-who-backed-strict-gun-control-laws-ousted-in-recall">successful recall</a> of two state lawmakers who favored stricter gun control measures. There is absolutely nothing in the Arapahoe High School shooting for gun control zealots to work with.<br />
<br />
On the contrary, the incident demolishes some of their cherished beliefs, most obviously their talismanic faith in the power of regulations to suppress this type of violence. Given his political activism, it seems likely that Karl Pierson was well aware of the local gun laws, but those laws did not dissuade him from going on a rampage. According to <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/us/colorado-school-shooting/index.html">CNN</a>, what ended his rampage in just 80 seconds, preventing him from dealing far more injury and death, was one of the measures strongly endorsed by the National Rifle Association: an armed adult on school grounds.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>In less than 80 seconds, Karl Pierson ”fired one random shot down a hallway,” then entered an area where 17-year-old Claire Esther Davis was seated with a friend, “and shot the female victim point-blank” in the head. “There was no time for the victim to run from the shooter,” Robinson told reporters on Saturday.</em></strong><br />
<strong><em>Pierson then fired another round down a hallway, then entered the library, where he fired again and ignited one of the Molotov cocktails, according to Robinson.</em></strong><br />
<blockquote>
<strong><em>That ignited at least three bookshelves, causing smoke to pour into the library.</em></strong><br />
<strong><em>He then fired a fifth round and ran to the library’s back corner, “and there took his own life.”</em></strong></blockquote>
<strong><em>By 12:35 p.m., it was all over</em></strong>.<br />
<br />
It takes CNN ten more paragraphs before they get around to telling you why the attack ended so suddenly, despite Pierson’s use of the fire bomb to set the stage for more chaos and death:<br />
<blockquote>
<strong><em>The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school, [Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson] Robinson said.</em></strong></blockquote>
<strong><em>Once he learned of the threat, he ran — accompanied by an unarmed school security officer and two administrators — from the cafeteria to the library, Robinson said. “It’s a fairly long hallway, but the deputy sheriff got there very quickly.”</em></strong><br />
<blockquote>
<strong><em>The deputy was yelling for people to get down and identified himself as a county deputy sheriff, Robinson said. “We know for a fact that the shooter knew that the deputy was in the immediate area and, while the deputy was containing the shooter, the shooter took his own life.”</em></strong></blockquote>
He praised the deputy’s response as “a critical element to the shooter’s decision” to kill himself, and lauded his response to hearing gunshots. <strong>“He went to the thunder,”</strong> he said. “He heard the noise of gunshot and, when many would run away from it, he ran toward it to make other people safe.”<br />
The NRA was torn to shreds for suggesting that armed police officers, armed teachers, and similar security measures were the most effective way to reduce the threat of school violence, because “gun-free zones” are always going to be a magnet for deranged individuals seeking high-profile soft targets, obviously even more so when the shooter is a a student at the school in question. <em><br />
</em><br />
You can dig up any liberal “Climate of Hate” screed written in the aftermath of the Tucson shooting and plug in Pierson’s left-wing activism, instead of whatever garbage they were spewing about Sarah Palin’s campaign map bullseye symbols or Rush Limbaugh’s anti-authoritarian rhetoric. Not a single author of those screeds could possibly defend themselves today from the scurrilous charges they were so quick to lob back then, when they saw an opportunity to use horrific tragedy as a club to beat their opponents into silence. Why don’t we bring <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/rush-limbaugh/">Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik</a> in as a consultant on the Arapahoe case, and invite him to adapt his theories about how right-wing talk radio drove Tucson shooter Jared Loughner to murder – even though he never listened to it – into a broad indictment of the mainstream Left for their complicity in Karl Pierson’s crime?<br />
What the Left did after Tucson was <em>nauseating.</em> Of course, it would be equally irrational and dishonest to pretend that honest liberals are even slightly responsible for Karl Pierson’s actions. But we should remember what so many liberals and top media figures said back then, and make sure they understand how easy it would be to turn their twisted, hateful, totalitarian thinking against them now.<br />
And we should be quick to notice how very different the media treatment of politicized crime becomes, the instant it becomes clear that the shooter isn’t a conservative. The hunt for the elusive Tea Party Killer continues, and one of these days he’ll most likely turn up, human nature being what it is. When he does, you may rest assured his political leanings will scream in boldfaced type from every headline in the country, and will be explored in the first few paragraphs of every story written about him.<br />
<br />
Prayers for Claire Davis, the 17-year-old student Pierson shot at point-blank range, and who remains stable but comatose at the time of this writing. She’s fighting for her life; her father told <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/15/us/colorado-school-shooting-victim/">CNN</a> that “doctors are worried about swelling to her brain.” A Twitter hashtag, #prayforclaire, has been established to gather best wishes for her recovery.<br />
__________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<strong><em>To read another article by John Hayward, <a href="http://bcfoley.blogspot.com/2013/12/gingrich-every-major-city-which-is.html">click here</a>.</em></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-81851365941509870172013-12-16T10:55:00.004-08:002013-12-16T11:12:00.647-08:00Gingrich: "Every major city which is a poverty center is run by Democrats." <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiod2sPyQ4ixNdxWrWGt15l3tHuv3ddn0zOfXkumtsxYbGkRTLCvaQbxLRFiXcBa9-1y6ItM4NBO4xBrvvKcEQEUPC7lMYDQ8K18uCktjaSIC9C08eQk5FB7VEMwCwWkEFbeJS_ja_ATqY/s1600/12-10-13+8.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="315" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiod2sPyQ4ixNdxWrWGt15l3tHuv3ddn0zOfXkumtsxYbGkRTLCvaQbxLRFiXcBa9-1y6ItM4NBO4xBrvvKcEQEUPC7lMYDQ8K18uCktjaSIC9C08eQk5FB7VEMwCwWkEFbeJS_ja_ATqY/s320/12-10-13+8.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<b>Gingrich: “Every major city which is a poverty center is run by Democrats.”<br />
</b>By: John Hayward <br />
12/16/2013 11:47 AM<br />
<br />
Courtesy of <em>NewsBusters</em>, here’s one of those heated exchanges that partisans of both Left and Right are bound to view as a slam-dunk in-your-face win for their side, as former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Clinton-era Labor Secretary Robert Reich spar over poverty and policy on <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/12/15/gingrich-schools-reich-every-major-city-which-poverty-center-run-demo">ABC’s “This Week.”</a><br />
<br />
<em><strong>In the exchange, Reich argues that the War on Poverty was going great until tight-fisted Republicans started interfering with Democrat plans to redistribute even more wealth, and claims “income inequality” has gotten worse under Obama because of Republican resistance to his agenda. This is, quite possibly, the dumbest thing anyone has ever said. Just for starters, it projects staggering ignorance about the War on Poverty. To agree with Reich, you have to be just about completely ignorant of actual history, not only from decades past but from the explosion of wealth redistribution and social welfare spending under the past few Presidents, particularly Obama.</strong></em><br />
<br />
But of course, it’s tedious leftist cant to insist that the only reason their policies fail is that they weren’t given another couple trillion dollars to pursue them more vigorously. Every failure of State control is caused by insufficient State control. <em><a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/15/gingrich-dismantles-robert-reichs-rant-on-income-inequality-this-is-baloney/"> The Daily Caller</a></em> offers a look at how the War on Poverty was going when Reich was on the front lines under Clinton, and his history of deliberately misrepresenting that history:<br />
<br />
<strong><em>One thing Reich isn’t taking responsibility for is his own contribution to inequality during his widely regretted stint in the White House. Working as the Clinton Administration’s Labor Secretary from 1993 to 1997, Reich oversaw a substantial hike in the federal minimum wage and implementation of the Family Leave Act. Despite these apparent War-On-Poverty victories, according to inequality.org‘s chart of after-tax income by income group, U.S. inequality during his tenure grew at the fastest rate ever seen up until that time.</em></strong><br />
<br />
Reich left office prior to the late-Clinton-era boom that lifted all wage groups and saw the last balanced budgets in American history. He later slammed his former colleagues in the memoir “Locked In the Cabinet,” which was universally criticized and had to be substantially re-edited in later editions due to Reich’s multiple distortions and outright falsehoods.<br />
<br />
Reich is a hardcore socialist, and<em> socialists lie</em>. It’s what they do. It’s baked into the very essence of their being, because their philosophy assumes the absolute primacy of a wise Ruling Class elite that knows how best to arrange society in a “fair” and “just” manner. This involves the use of compulsive force to seize assets and income from their rightful owners, plus a good deal of forcing average citizens to live as the Ruling Class desires.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the Western socialist lives with the unpleasant reality of popular elections, where the people have a distressing ability to reject the vision of the Ruling Class and insist on their liberties. Therefore, it is inescapably necessary for the great and wise to lie to voters, because they can’t handle the truth. It’s for their own good, so it’s all totally justified. By definition, the common man lacks the vision of the elite, so he cannot be allowed to thwart that vision by voting against it. You will never be granted complete candor by people who believe that you must be forced to do certain things for the greater benefit of society, as they envision it, because such candor would inevitably lead to greater resistance. The path to utopia will require many sacrifices, so the ignorant people must be led down it blindfolded.<br />
<br />
Gingrich hits back hard against Reich’s assertion that Republican stonewalling of the Obama agenda is the only reason we haven’t drawn closer to utopia over the past five years, calling it “baloney.” Gingrich shot back: “Every major city which is a center of poverty is run by Democrats. Every major city. Their policies have failed, they’re not willing to admit it, and the fact is, it’s the poor who suffer from bad government.”<br />
<br />
Reich stammered something about how outgoing New York mayor Michael Bloomberg wasn’t a Democrat, but aside from Bloomberg’s decidedly government-centered philosophy, the rest of New York’s political machinery has been safely in Democrat hands forever. No one is going to “solve” the poverty debate in an exchange of sound bites, but Gingrich’s point about how badly-run government causes the greatest suffering among the poor is far more solid than anything Reich says, and it’s worth exploring further.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the point begins as something of a tautology, because the poor are, by definition, “suffering” worst from a policy standpoint under any system of government. But what Gingrich means is that bad government policies are particularly destructive to the opportunities for employment and stability essential to the climb out of poverty. Reich is an utter fool to believe that these opportunities can be replaced by titanic government spending programs; the Obama years are definitive proof that doesn’t work. As a left-wing propagandist, he might deserve a little applause for having the chutzpah to make his “just give us more money to spend and we’ll get it right” argument in favor of managerial liberalism at the exact moment ObamaCare is crashing down in flames, the most devastating failure of Reich’s ideals since the fall of the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
Over a trillion dollars in “stimulus” spending gave us permanent double-digit real unemployment. Even the heavily cooked unemployment rate popularized by the news media has been stuck over 7 percent for years, and it’s a lot worse in the demographics Gingrich and Reich are discussing. When Obama imposed his stimulus spending agenda, all the “smart people” in his elite team assured us their plans would bring unemployment under 5 percent by the end of the President’s first term. Instead, the job market tracked consistently and significantly worse than the worst-case scare-tactic conditions they warned would occur without their redistribution scheme.<br />
<br />
The social pathologies incubated by the Great Society turned cities into blighted war zones, not only because of the corrosive effect cradle-to-grave welfare has on the people it’s ostensibly trying to “help,” but because the cities ruled by Democrats have become the hardest places in America to launch a business venture or hire someone. Their stale political cultures have been very lucrative for the ruling party’s cronies, but smokestacks of despair for everyone else. Knowing that things will never change makes small entrepreneurs – the people who don’t get front-page headline coverage for throwing political fundraisers – depart the dying cities to seek opportunity elsewhere. We’re not talking about a few people bailing out and skedaddling for the burbs just because a couple of elections don’t go their way. We’re discussing cities with generational histories of one-party rule and machine politics. To this day, their ruling political machines have absolutely no idea how to reverse the decline, because everything that might work is completely antithetical to their statist ideology, not to mention their hunger for government revenue.<br />
<br />
The day Margaret Thatcher warned about has arrived – the Left has run out of other peoples’ money to spend. Even the vast ocean of federal spending and debt is not bottomless. We’ve arguably passed the point where the geese of industry can be squeezed by the State for more golden eggs, without choking them to death. A great deal of Obama malaise is caused by government overtaxing and over-regulating the private sector far beyond the point where the net result is counter-productive. This economy is begging for pro-growth tax reforms and the privatization of moribund government programs, beginning with ObamaCare, which managed the neat trick of being born moribund. The situation is even more pronounced in the cities Newt Gingrich mentioned, which offer a glimpse into our national future for anyone with the intellectual honesty to look clearly. The private sector needs to get bigger, and fast. It is no longer strong enough to carry the flabby Ruling Class riding on its back.<br />
_____________________________________________<br />
<br />
<strong><em>To read another article by John Hayward, <a href="http://bcfoley.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-cliffhanger-march-11.html">click here.</a></em></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-65604175351628190342013-12-15T21:57:00.000-08:002013-12-15T22:04:00.881-08:00Raising the Minimum Wage Would Hurt the People It's Supposed to Help<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaf3eOP9MLGIABCkUrCd9CfWVfUzssgBl-0T22MtsnYrPtVenQcu-vuQfrPz35Ufy8N4bAd5A2Txq-u4b6gCJdEIUKL1_ABWmDSi6VyM9ZtoTj55qDhiw0ebxtHQPWhyphenhyphenvqwRrLsfPkcHY/s1600/12-15-13+5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaf3eOP9MLGIABCkUrCd9CfWVfUzssgBl-0T22MtsnYrPtVenQcu-vuQfrPz35Ufy8N4bAd5A2Txq-u4b6gCJdEIUKL1_ABWmDSi6VyM9ZtoTj55qDhiw0ebxtHQPWhyphenhyphenvqwRrLsfPkcHY/s320/12-15-13+5.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<b>Raising the Minimum Wage Would Hurt the People It's Supposed to Help</b><br />
Ed Feulner December 14, 2013 at 10:17 am<br />
<br />
<a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2013/12/14/raising-minimum-wage-hurt-people-supposed-help/">http://blog.heritage.org/2013/12/14/raising-minimum-wage-hurt-people-supposed-help/</a><br />
<br />
Hike the minimum wage. For politicians trying to show their concern for those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, it’s a simple solution. It’s catching on again, with several states and municipalities approving local hikes, and a proposal before Congress to hike it by an unprecedented amount, from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour over the next two years.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, this seemingly obvious remedy is also a very bad idea, not only for the economy as a whole, but for the low-wage workers it is supposed to help.<br />
<br />
Indeed, studies show that the latest congressional hike would likely eliminate some 300,000 jobs per year and lower our national economic output by more than $40 billion annually. Why? Because raising the cost of labor naturally makes it more expensive to hire, leading cash-strapped employers with no choice but to slow down or freeze hiring.<br />
<br />
Those who blithely propose large minimum-wage increases are ignoring a basic economic truth: When you raise the cost of something, you slow down the rate at which people purchase it. They buy less. So an employer who might decide to hire another worker when the cost is relatively low will forgo that expense when it gets too high.<br />
<br />
That, in turn, can be bad news for those who already work for that employer. He may have no choice but to work his other employees harder, when he could have taken a chance on an unskilled worker and given that individual a chance to prove himself and to move up.<br />
<br />
That, incidentally, is the great truth that all too many people on both sides overlook: Relatively few people actually earn the minimum wage. Less than 3 percent of all workers earn $7.25 an hour. For the vast majority of low-skilled or unskilled workers, that amount is simply a starting salary that gets them in the door and gives them a chance to advance.<br />
<br />
Most workers do just that. They move up. After being hired for the minimum wage, they learn valuable skills that help them move up the economic ladder. Two-thirds of them get a raise within a year.<br />
<br />
Many of today’s entrepreneurs and success stories began their careers in very humble employment circumstances. “Actress Patricia Richardson, star of the ABC sitcom ‘Home Improvement,’ scrubbed bathroom floors and toilets in a hotel,” notes Policy Review. “Telecommunications executive John J. Sie worked on the assembly line of a stapler factory. Ivan Seidenberg, the chairman and CEO of NYNEX, was a janitor.”<br />
<br />
Not everyone rises to the top, of course, but entry-level jobs such as these — the same kind that will be in shorter supply if the minimum wage is hiked precipitously — have helped millions of Americans (most of whom are between the ages of 16 and 24 and work part time) learn the basic skills needed to succeed in any field: Show up on time. Look neat. Be courteous. Most of all, work hard.<br />
<br />
Wendy’s founder Dave Thomas is among those who learned those lessons firsthand. He started off working in a diner owned by two Greek immigrant brothers. “They taught me the importance of being polite and of praising people for a job well done,” Thomas said. “From them I learned that if you work hard and apply yourself, you succeed. It’s really not that complicated.”<br />
<br />
However, if the politicians who want to jack up the minimum wage get their way, things are about to become a whole lot more complicated, both for workers and the economy.<br />
<br />
Worse, says Heritage labor expert James Sherk, the minimum wage has already been hiked to more than $10 an hour, at least in effect. Why? Because of Obamacare’s mandate that employers provide “qualifying” health coverage or be penalized. Once the mandate kicks in in 2015, hiring costs will go up still more for employers.<br />
<br />
Low-paying jobs have given millions of Americans with no work skills the opportunity to step on the ladder of success, where they can rapidly advance to higher-paying jobs. Why cut off the bottom rung by hiking the minimum wage so dramatically?<br />
<br />
<em>Originally published by The Washington Times.</em><br />
<em>_________________________________________________________</em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em><strong>To read more by about raising the minimum wage, <a href="http://bcfoley.blogspot.com/2013/07/waitim-not-quite-through.html">click here.</a></strong></em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-44703730063774159422013-12-15T20:28:00.004-08:002013-12-15T20:38:11.398-08:00Colorado Shooting over in 80 Seconds because of Armed School Resource Officer<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOjsvKMa4hftwHfhE_GnLyfrSXcTkOfHDmcNgi02NRf6QTA5-iwfmlNFBRx3KTDvC9NTza_rKTEvLrvxP5GU1vShJMPDTrB6370AwrW0gf265Hs3YpFe5D6n147577_XF5-lpHc6v7zh4/s1600/12-11-13+4.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOjsvKMa4hftwHfhE_GnLyfrSXcTkOfHDmcNgi02NRf6QTA5-iwfmlNFBRx3KTDvC9NTza_rKTEvLrvxP5GU1vShJMPDTrB6370AwrW0gf265Hs3YpFe5D6n147577_XF5-lpHc6v7zh4/s320/12-11-13+4.jpg" /></a><br />
<b>Colorado Shooting over in 80 Seconds because of Armed School Resource Officer</b><br />
Posted by Brandon on 12/15/2013 <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.concealednation.org/2013/12/colorado-shooting-over-in-80-seconds-because-of-armed-staff-member/">http://www.concealednation.org/2013/12/colorado-shooting-over-in-80-seconds-because-of-armed-staff-member/</a><br />
<br />
You heard it right, gun grabbers. The recent shooting in Colorado at Arapahoe High School happened to have a Deputy Sheriff on school grounds who was working as a school resource officer, according to a CNN report. He was in the vicinity of the shooter when the rampage began and was able to <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/us/colorado-school-shooting/index.html">end the violence in 80 seconds.</a> The initial reports were stating that the police took 14 minutes to arrive on the scene, but we are now learning that wasn’t what ended the shooting.<br />
<br />
<br />
The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school, Robinson said.<br />
<br />
Once he learned of the threat, he ran — accompanied by an unarmed school security officer and two administrators — from the cafeteria to the library, Robinson said. “It’s a fairly long hallway, but the deputy sheriff got there very quickly.”<br />
<br />
The deputy was yelling for people to get down and identified himself as a county deputy sheriff, Robinson said. “We know for a fact that the shooter knew that the deputy was in the immediate area and, while the deputy was containing the shooter, the shooter took his own life.”<br />
<br />
He praised the deputy’s response as “a critical element to the shooter’s decision” to kill himself, and lauded his response to hearing gunshots. “He went to the thunder,” he said. “He heard the noise of gunshot and, when many would run away from it, he ran toward it to make other people safe.”<br />
<br />
Not even 24 hours ago, we posted an article discussing <a href="http://www.concealednation.org/2013/12/what-have-we-learned-since-sandy-hook-and-what-are-we-doing-to-prevent-it-from-happening-again/">what we’ve learned since Sandy Hook</a> and what we’re doing about it. Well, this is a perfect example of something we should be doing across the country.<br />
<br />
While you’re here, this is a perfect opportunity to revisit <a href="http://www.concealednation.org/2013/11/the-illusion-of-the-gun-free-zone/">The Illusion of the Gun Free Zone</a>, as it fits like a perfectly matched puzzle piece.<br />
<br />
We’re tired of being polite. This needs to be common practice.<br />
ALLOW LEGALLY ARMED STAFF TO CARRY ON SCHOOL GROUNDS.<br />
END GUN FREE ZONES.<br />
<br />
Share this with as many people as you can, because these are the stories that don’t stay in the headlines for very long. It’s extremely important that people see these mass shootings when they end in this fashion. The media tends to give much more attention to the shootings that have a higher death toll. The reality is, the story above should have more coverage because of the low death toll and praise the officer for defusing a horrible situation that would have been much worse.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-72559451975989975132013-12-15T20:11:00.003-08:002013-12-16T11:49:29.098-08:00Next up: force the churches to perform gay weddings<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNhtebOwPEugv8qG2htCy-Y3QZ22ThK477yuGiROgfD5Fq9jslNzeWt96HBTa1KrOT6AHyVo9fnRjb8oqdan7fmBdeduCpCpwtOgFwnHK7SZ-SKGyDzEzdojWwJcKyytePlBiDj_XKVwY/s1600/12-14-13+3.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNhtebOwPEugv8qG2htCy-Y3QZ22ThK477yuGiROgfD5Fq9jslNzeWt96HBTa1KrOT6AHyVo9fnRjb8oqdan7fmBdeduCpCpwtOgFwnHK7SZ-SKGyDzEzdojWwJcKyytePlBiDj_XKVwY/s320/12-14-13+3.jpg" /></a><br />
<b>Next up: force the churches to perform gay weddings</b><br />
Posted on December 10, 2013 <br />
by The Matt Walsh Blog <br />
<br />
<a href="http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/10/next-up-force-the-churches-to-perform-gay-weddings/">http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/10/next-up-force-the-churches-to-perform-gay-weddings/</a><br />
<br />
Hello, “gay rights” proponents.<br />
<br />
I’d like to ask you a question.<br />
<br />
Think very carefully before you respond, because I will hold you to your answer.<br />
<br />
It’s a two-parter, and here it is:<br />
<br />
Do you believe in freedom of association? Do you believe in freedom of expression?<br />
<br />
Wait! It’s a trap! Mind your step, my friends. Think about this. Take a break, meditate on the question, and then come back to it.<br />
<br />
OK, now, after careful consideration, I ask again:<br />
<br />
Do you believe in freedom of association? Do you believe in freedom of expression?<br />
<br />
You do? Of course you say you do. Your entire philosophy is built on these two freedoms. Personally, I don’t think either are actually relevant to the fundamental question of whether or not the union between two men can be equal to the union between a man and a woman, and therefore whether two men can actually be “married,” but I’m accepting your premise for the sake of argument. <br />
<br />
Freedom of association. Freedom of expression. The latter explicitly protected under the First Amendment, the former implicitly. Both, in my mind, pretty unrelated to this subject, yet consistently trotted out by gay marriage advocates. <br />
<br />
So, alright, let’s go with it. <br />
<br />
But remember, you can’t just profess these principles when they are convenient to your cause. Principles are solid things; they can’t be picked apart and redesigned. They carry with them a certain responsibility. If you fail in that responsibility, your principles become meaningless, and no intelligent adult can be expected to take you seriously. This is what forever irritates me about modern America. Very few people have the guts to apply their own principles evenly, equally, and consistently in every situation, all of the time, no matter what. And nothing will get better as long as we’re too cowardly to even believe in our own beliefs.<br />
<br />
This is all a long way of saying that you, gay marriage supporters, are frauds and hypocrites if you don’t speak out loudly against this. <br />
<br />
A judge in Colorado has ordered a baker to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. This is like something out of a George Orwell acid trip. We now have judges forcing Christians to bake desserts for gay men. Let that sink in for a moment. This is actually happening. In America. In reality.<br />
<br />
This baker, specifically targeted by this attention-seeking couple, initially declined to make a cake for the gay wedding because he had deep and profound religious objections to the ceremony. This left the gay couple with two options: 1) Go, like, find any other baker in the area. 2) Try to legally force the man to bake the cake, because FREEDOM.<br />
<br />
Of course, as per usual, they went with option two. There is so much laughable hypocrisy in the “gay rights” movement that I have officially decided to stop parsing my words about it. Actually, I suppose I’ve never parsed my words about anything, so I’ll just continue with that strategy. It’s simple: you can’t FORCE people to associate with you and then turn around and preach about freedom of association. You see that, don’t you? <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, a florist in Washington State faces penalties for declining to provide flowers for a gay wedding, and the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against a photographer for deciding not to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony. This, as a t-shirt company here in Kentucky is still embroiled in a legal battle for committing the crime of refusing to make t-shirts for a gay pride parade in Lexington. The owner even referred the gay pride parade organizers to other t-shirt companies who offer the same service for the same price; but that wasn’t good enough for these Freedom of Association Crusaders. They’ve dedicated the better part of two years to destroying this man and his business.<br />
<br />
If a man has the right to choose who he marries, a business owner surely must have the right to choose who he serves. You can not argue for the first while actively attempting to undermine the second. Well, you can, but you’re a fraud, and I will call you a fraud. If the “gay rights” campaign is simply about winning the culture; if it’s really, as many of us suspect, about defeating the Old Way, the way of Natural Law and Judeo-Christian values, then these tactics are understandable. Even necessary. But you claim that such talk is nothing but hysterical, bigoted nonsense. You claim gay rights are about freedom.<br />
<br />
Well, freedom is a two way street. Freedom can’t be contained in your convenient little box. You can not achieve freedom for yourself by taking it away from your neighbor. You can not find freedom through tyranny.<br />
<br />
Try to appreciate the irony. A gay wedding is, supposedly, a victory for freedom of association. Yet gay activists see no problem with forcing Christians to associate with it. The gays who pull these stunts are nothing but spiteful bullies. I wasn’t in charge of finding someone to make our cake for our wedding, but if I had been, and if I had accidentally ventured into a store owned by a Catholic-hating baker, and if that baker told me that he did not want to be a part of a Catholic ceremony, do you know what I’d do? <br />
<br />
I’d find another baker. <br />
<br />
I’d go out and use my freedom of speech to tell my Catholic friends that Jim’s Bakery down the street doesn’t want their business. I might write a scathing blog post about them. But I wouldn’t attempt to take their freedom away. And I DEFINITELY wouldn’t attempt to FORCE the man to bake a cake for me. <br />
<br />
Because that’s just insane. <br />
<br />
Many of us old fashioned types have long worried that the next step in the gay rights battle is to force churches to perform these ceremonies. Attention, Christians: this is no longer a hypothetical. <br />
<br />
The rest of this post will be addressed to you. <br />
<br />
Wake up. <br />
<br />
Pay attention. <br />
<br />
Are you watching this? If the government can force a caterer to cater a gay wedding, and a photographer to photograph a gay wedding, and a baker to bake for a gay wedding, why can’t it force a church to conduct a gay wedding? Why, precisely? Because the church is a “religious institution”? So what? Where is it written that only religious institutions have a right to religious expression? I’ll tell you where that distinction isn’t made: the Constitution. If a photographer does not have the freedom to express his religious beliefs on the job, why should he have it just because he walks into a church? If bakers, and photographers, and t-shirt printers can be compelled to abandon their opposition to gay marriage, so too can pastors. Do you see where this is headed?<br />
<br />
We’re told that the baker must bake for the gay couple because his refusal would constitute “discrimination.” Aren’t the churches guilty of discrimination then? And if gays have a right to not be discriminated against by a baker, why don’t they have a right to not be discriminated against by churches?<br />
<br />
The right to not be discriminated against doesn’t, and can’t, exist alongside the First Amendment, but progressives always make up rights as they go along. Often, we cooperate when the fabricated right feels and looks innocent. “Hmm, a right to not be discriminated against? Well, that neither exists nor makes any sense at all, but it feels good so I’m fine with it!” In the next phase, the made-up right is applied in ways that we don’t particularly enjoy, but we’ve lost the ability to oppose it. <br />
<br />
So stay silent while the government turns business owners into indentured servants for gay wedding ceremonies, but don’t suddenly cry out when they do the same to your church. <br />
<br />
Now is the time to protest. <br />
<br />
Speak now, or forever hold your peace. <br />
_____________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<strong><em>To read another article about gay marriage, </em><a href="http://bcfoley.blogspot.com/2013/01/muzzling-military-chaplains.html"><em>click here</em>.</a></strong><br />
<strong>_____________________________________________________</strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
<strong><em>To read more about gay rights? <a href="http://bclabjfoley.blogspot.com/2011/02/gay-rights-articles.html">Click here.</a></em></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-85250720705446209582013-12-15T00:49:00.000-08:002013-12-15T21:12:27.659-08:00Famous Presidential Lies <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguaWI-kCdjEK9133Zi-oSJBnayihG00H7oUPKLS0eMKiIa5Z2odsrQMUJDqEd2lvj2HZ0aY2temairhXnwzJBeh2Vjc9qYwQj5tsGcrrIqtF7YslH7TOSFAPWp0D31f0ps7dIVFniKhlo/s1600/12-10-13+14.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguaWI-kCdjEK9133Zi-oSJBnayihG00H7oUPKLS0eMKiIa5Z2odsrQMUJDqEd2lvj2HZ0aY2temairhXnwzJBeh2Vjc9qYwQj5tsGcrrIqtF7YslH7TOSFAPWp0D31f0ps7dIVFniKhlo/s320/12-10-13+14.jpg" /></a><br />
<b>Famous Presidential Lies</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>George Washington:</b> I did not chop down that tree. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>LBJ:</b> We were attacked (in the Gulf of Tonkin)<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Nixon:</b> I am not a crook<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Clinton:</b> I did not have sex with that woman... <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Bush - 41:</b> Read my lips - No new taxes<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Obama:<br />
</b><br />
I will have the most transparent administration in history.<br />
<br />
TARP is to fund shovel-ready jobs.<br />
<br />
I am focused like a laser on creating jobs.<br />
<br />
The IRS is not targeting anyone.<br />
<br />
It was a spontaneous riot about a movie.<br />
<br />
If I had a son.<br />
<br />
I will put an end to the type of politics that "breeds division, conflict and cynicism".<br />
<br />
You didn't build that!<br />
<br />
I will restore trust in Government.<br />
<br />
The Cambridge cops acted stupidly.<br />
<br />
The public will have 5 days to look at every bill that lands on my desk<br />
<br />
It's not my red line - it is the world's red line.<br />
<br />
Whistle blowers will be protected in my administration.<br />
<br />
We got back every dime we used to rescue the banks and auto companies, with interest.<br />
<br />
I am not spying on American citizens.<br />
<br />
Obama Care will be good for America<br />
<br />
You can keep your family doctor.<br />
<br />
Premiums will be lowered by $2500.<br />
<br />
If you like it, you can keep your current healthcare plan<br />
<br />
It's just like shopping at Amazon<br />
<br />
I knew nothing about "Fast and Furious" gunrunning to Mexican drug cartels<br />
<br />
I knew nothing about IRS targeting conservative groups<br />
<br />
I knew nothing about what happened in Benghazi<br />
<br />
<b>And the biggest one of all:</b> <br />
<br />
"I, Barrack Hussein Obama, pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America."<br />
<br />
<br />
News: The famous LIARS club that meets annually in Minnesota has turned down Obama’s application as they do not allow professionals.<br />
______________________________________________<br />
<br />
<strong>To read about more Obama lies, <a href="http://bcfoley.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-coming-sequester-lies.html">click here.</a></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914273474219907075.post-13925019963535763072013-12-15T00:33:00.000-08:002013-12-15T22:08:18.000-08:00The Road to Genocide is Paved with Liberal Intentions<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEginaJnb5yG0Q-daQLzCJWs1dpUHFcxOOa9m6jAYFjmCUoozs9SkaI5J36kyuUl_QrwcI5sX8KOaHuPBurVFpkkjN2vZCdi4YDmiB-RCIkw3niizkhwKOPA5NPqMMhMgE9KtxZjOAZaSrY/s1600/12-12-13+4.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEginaJnb5yG0Q-daQLzCJWs1dpUHFcxOOa9m6jAYFjmCUoozs9SkaI5J36kyuUl_QrwcI5sX8KOaHuPBurVFpkkjN2vZCdi4YDmiB-RCIkw3niizkhwKOPA5NPqMMhMgE9KtxZjOAZaSrY/s320/12-12-13+4.jpg" /></a><br />
<b>The Road to Genocide is Paved with Liberal Intentions</b><br />
By Selwyn Duke<br />
<br />
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/12/the_road_to_genocide_is_paved_with_liberal_intentions.html<br />
<br />
With all the recent talk about Nelson Mandela the myth and the modicum of talk about Mandela the man, it's a good opportunity to discuss another myth: that of apartheid. Oh, I know, modernist dogma dictates we behave not just as if the South African system Mandela so stridently fought was not only unsustainable, but also completely unfathomable. After all, the idea of second-class status for any group is anathema to Westerners (unless it happens to be non-Muslims in Islamic lands, of course). <br />
<br />
I was just a teenager when world pressure to end apartheid started to reach a fever pitch. My immediate reaction was that the intended outcome -- universal suffrage and black majority rule -- was crazy. Don't misunderstand me, as I believed that perpetuating apartheid was morally problematic and unrealistic. Yet I also said that the end result of the world's little plan for SA would be the extermination of the whites. So I drew a logical conclusion: the country should be partitioned. <br />
<br />
With the discrimination against and persecution and murder of SA whites worsening yearly -- and with Genocide Watch warning that they're imperiled by impending genocide -- my youthful (and obvious) prediction seems vindicated. Yet most still don't see the bloody writing on the wall. Worse still, some who do shamelessly shrug it off as the comeuppance due "oppressors." So I'll now do that most unfashionable of things: place apartheid in perspective. <br />
<br />
Most people would never guess it, but the arrival of whites in SA dates back further than that of the ancestors of many of the nation's blacks. The first Dutch settlers (who became known as "Boers" or "Afrikaners") landed on Africa's shores in 1652, while many blacks in SA arrived later. After all, since life in "racist" SA was vastly preferable to that in surrounding nations, it had long been attractive to black migrants. In fact, due to this factor and blacks' higher birthrates, SA's black demographic has increased 920 percent since 1913; this is the main reason the nation's population increased from 6 million a century ago to 52 million today, as the white demographic increased only 3.3 million during that period. <br />
<br />
The relevant point, however, is that the Dutch settlers found in southern Africa a vast and beautiful land with great wide-open spaces. They then did what Erik the Red did in Greenland, what countless groups have done throughout history: they set up shop -- their own shop. Of course, there were Xhosa and Zulus about, but they did their own thing as the Europeans did theirs for the same reason why the Sioux and Cheyenne stayed separate in North America, the Lombards and Alans remained separate in barbarian Europe, or the Smith and Jones households live separately on their block: the default for different groups, with different values and cultures or even just different blood ties, is to live apart. They naturally, instinctively, reflexively maintain "apartness." <br />
<br />
This worked well and was unquestioned for a very long time. But then something happened.<br />
<br />
Southern Africa started moving into modernity. <br />
<br />
As the Afrikaners and British developed the region, a country known as "South Africa" emerged. And as the blacks were integrated into this European creation -- being hired by whites, receiving at least some Western education and learning European languages -- they, too, developed a sense of belonging to this "South Africa." <br />
<br />
This created an interesting situation. If the whites had maintained complete separation -- if they would have and could have avoided all contact with the African tribes -- there would have been no Nelson Mandelas (for the same reason why Amazonian natives who know of nothing beyond their forest canopy don't lobby for voting rights). If, as occurred with the Japanese and their islands' indigenous people, the Ainus, the SA whites came to outnumber and largely subsume the tribes, there would have been no one of note around to lobby for anything. But since SA is not an island and African migrants could easily cross the border in large numbers, this was a non-starter.<br />
<br />
But neither of these things happened. Rather, SA blacks moved into modernity and became part of South Africa, a democracy -- and outnumbered the whites 10 to 1. What were the whites to do? Granting the blacks full citizenship rights would usher in the whites' political, and perhaps physical, destruction. Given this, is it surprising that what always ensured cultural preservation and group safety, that naturally ordained "apartness," was replaced with the government-ordained policy of "apartheid?"<br />
<br />
The point here isn't to make any moral statement about segregation in general or SA's version in particular. It is, rather, this: regardless of the extent to which white South Africans were inhuman -- as all peoples can sometimes be -- they did nothing unhuman. Their social policies were exactly what could be expected from any group of humans in their situation. <br />
<br />
If any question this, try a thought exercise. Imagine there was an African tribe that had a long history in a land, had turned that land into a nation, brought it into modernity and created its democracy, and had reason to believe that sharing power would lead to its own persecution. Would it surprise anyone if they took measures to ensure their safety, cultural integrity, and hold on power? <br />
<br />
But we don't have to theorize. There's no shortage of African countries where one tribe dominated government -- such as with the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda -- and tribes have often spilled blood vying for power. One difference, though, is that the dominant group usually doesn't rule democratically but autocratically; another is that they're generally far more brutal than SA's apartheid government. And there's a third difference: whatever the persecutions, oh-so humanitarian Western moderns generally pay these countries little mind. So it's hard to escape the conclusion that the real problem the West had with SA was that the ruling tribe happened to be the wrong color.<br />
<br />
It should be added, however, that SA whites did do one thing no other group has. Is there any other instance in history in which a small minority built a country, had a long history within it, brought it into modernity and created its democracy, and then handed that democracy's reins to a much larger group, even though reason informed that this would bring persecution? Call it magnanimity, call it stupidity, call it both, but it's one thing for sure: strikingly unprecedented. <br />
<br />
Whatever you call it, SA whites had a lot of help in crafting their suicide pact from a hypocritical Western world that saw a government more benevolent than most others on its continent, but nonetheless placed an undue onus on it because the rulers were the wrong race. SA was the George Zimmerman of the geopolitical stage: the white-on-black incident that got all the press while rampant black-on-black crime was ignored. <br />
<br />
In truth, many of SA's current troubles could have been avoided by a two-state solution, the kind of healthy "apartness" the West so easily saw the logic in upon the former Yugoslavia's dissolution. And now, even though the West's ending apartheid has led to impending genocide, it sees nothing. To the modern liberal, white is the new invisible. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0