July 14, 2015. A VERY Bad Day.

In no particular order, here’s why Tuesday, July 14, 2015 was a particularly bad day in America… and really, the world.

1. OBAMA FORCES CONTRACEPTION ON NUNS Obama Admin tells nuns – Yes,Little Sisters of the Poor NUNS – they must facilitate the purchase of birth control.  (And as a bonus: these are nuns who minister to the poor – in hospice.  HOSPICE, okay?  Not a lot of nookie goin’ on in their daily ministry.  And their name?  Even their name should elicit gentleness and compassion in anyone with a conscience:  Little Sisters of the Poor.)

Little Sisters of the Poor2

I don’t even know how to comment on this story without crying.  Honestly.  And I’m a fallen woman.  An EX-Catholic, with no particular “brand” of faith to call my own.  So I’m no reflexive Catholic apologist.  But I’m not without wit.  I’m sentient.  I can read.  I know what our Founding was all about, what it means, why it means what it means… etc., etc., and this is just flabbergasting.

FURTHER READING:  If you’d like to so some reading on how this could happen in America, of all places, let me heartily recommend a brilliant America Thinker piece, U.S. Has Established a State Religion: What Now for Christians?, which echoes my thoughts beautifully.  It delineates how the federal government’s establishment of non-religion has become the functional equivalent of the federal government’s religion… which is sorta the opposite of the whole point of our country…

2.  BABY BODY PARTS FOR SALE (Taxpayer supported) Planned Parenthood is selling body parts… and evidently has no problem discussing the best way, during a late-term abortion, to crush-this-without-crushing-that, while keeping the profitable organs intact, and going over the minute details of this unimaginably evil practice while sipping wine over lunch at a restaurant.

I mean… What… What can you even say to that?

MEDIA MALPRACTICE: Meanwhile, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post etc. is shoving a microphone in front of every single GOP Presidential candidate demanding they condemn Donald Trump over his remarks on the Mexican border (which were impolitic but substantially true) or be regarded as endorsing them, but not a single one of them has asked Hillary Clinton (or any other Democrat, candidate or not) if she stands with Planned Parenthood, will condemn thisSanger on weeds ghoulish practice, return the many thousands of dollars in campaign donations they’ve given her, awards they’ve given her, or be regarded as endorsing them.

It’s good to be a Democrat.

Margaret_Sanger-KKKFURTHER READING: If you’d like some further reading on the long, long ties between Planned Parenthood and the Democratic Party, here’s just one blog post I found on HRC’s, Obama’s, and Democratic support in general for PP. If you are unaware of the hideous genesis of Planned Parenthood, and you might well be since it’s been buried so well, Margaret Sanger founded it back in the Progressive Era.  She was a virulent racist, eugenicist, and spoke openly about how the purpose of “planned parenthood” wasmargaret-sanger-quote-about-negro-population the pulling of “weeds” from the population, i.e., ‘undesirables’… like blacks…

Again… If people only knew the truth of progressivism, how cold and calculating it was and remains (clearly!), there’s just no possible way you could embrace it.  And please don’t misunderstand:  it’s not that I am for a return to back-alley abortions.  I’m not.  That genie is out of the bottle.  But I do believe that third-trimester abortion should be severely restricted.  I mean… Good grief.  If you don’t know if you want to go through with a pregnancy until you’re 8 1/2 months along… the decision had been made for you, toots.  That baby is coming.  If you don’t want it, give it up for adoption.  

3.  NUKES FOR MULLAHS The capitulation was finally complete this morning in Vienna.  We have a deal.  With Iran.  This piece at American Thinker pretty well sums up my feelings on the matter.  In short?  Obama just launched a Middle-East NUCLEAR arms race, and I don’t have a lot of confidence these medieval-mahdi-seeking-mullahs will exercise self-control.  If it’s not Israel’s death-warrant, it’s surely somebody’s… maybe a lot of somebodys…

And just for kicks, consider:  This President has gone out of his way, orchestrated a massive global effort, to see to it that Iran gets nukes, while simultaneously launching an equally aggressive domestic effort to see to it that his fellow Americans can’t have a lawful gun.  Got that?  Mullas and nukes = GOOD.  Fellow Americans and Second Amendment = BAD.

I guess you’d have to be a progressive to appreciate (or divine) any nuance in that.

FURTHER READING:  Mark Levin’s take on this (the Iran deal) is perfect.  Highly recommend listening to his 07/14/2015 podcast in full (It’s his entire 3 hour show – less than 2 hours because all the commercials are chopped out – and it’s free, every day), or you can read excerpts here.

So that’s July 14, 2015 in America.

And we’ve got 555 days more of this to go.

If we make it that far.

Thoughtful Analogy on SSM

Regarding the uproar over wedding cakes, etc., for same-sex marriages:

I like this.  It’s thoughtful.  Somebody put their thinking cap on and really noodled this out and I like that.  A lot.  Give it a read and follow the bouncing, extrapolating ball.  It’s kinda neat. Via Breitbart’s John Nolte, who’s a fave of mine over there.



April 1, 2015
By John Nolte

CNN’s Sally Kohn runs a small private for-profit business.

Indiana Bob runs a small private for-profit business.

Sally offers a product to the public as a speaker. Her product is inspirational speeches that conform to her worldview.

Bob offers a product to the public as a baker. His product is specialized wedding cakes that celebrate the holy union of marriage.

Sally is a very nice, very smart, very likable gay progressive.

Bob is a very nice, very smart, very likable practicing Muslim.

Sally will tell you she was born a lesbian.

Bob will tell you he was born a Muslim.

Sally’s speech is protected from the government by the First Amendment.

Bob’s religious faith is protected from the government by the very same First Amendment.

Because her speech is protected by the First Amendment, Sally cannot be forced by the government to alter her product — her speech — into something that violates her beliefs and conscience.

Although Bob’s religious practices and beliefs are protected by the same First Amendment, Sally is demanding the government force Bob into altering his product — a wedding cake — into something that violates Bob’s beliefs and conscience: a same-sex wedding cake.

Sally believes it is unconstitutional for the government to force her to alter her business product (inspirational speeches) in a way that violates her beliefs and her First Amendment rights.

Nevertheless, Sally also believes that freedom and equality demand the government force Bob to craft and deliver his business product (wedding cakes) in a way that violates his beliefs and First Amendment rights.

Because her speech is protected by the First Amendment, even though she offers her services to the public, the government cannot force Sally to serve everyone. For example, on her website, Sally offers to deliver “an inspiring tingle-in-your-toes speech,” but she could not be forced by the government and would not agree to offer that service to inspire or tingle anyone’s toes at a meeting of anti-abortion activists.

Nevertheless, Sally believes the product she serves the public (inspirational speeches) is more equal than the business product Bob serves the public (wedding cakes).

Thanks to her First Amendment protections, Sally does not believe she can be forced by the government to serve all of the public with her inspirational speeches.

Nevertheless, Sally believes Bob should be forced by the government to serve all of the public.

Sally believes her First Amendment speech rights are protected even when that right is turned into a for-profit business product.

Sally does not believe Bob’s First Amendment religious rights are protected when that right is turned into a for-profit business product.

Although she offers her product to the public, Bob would never dream of asking Sally to violate her First Amendment rights, her beliefs or her conscience.

Nevertheless, Sally would see the government punish Bob and the public shame Bob if he refused to violate his own First Amendment rights, his beliefs and his conscience.

Bob would never dream of trampling Sally’s First Amendment rights.

Sally wants the government to trample Bob’s First Amendment rights.

Breitbart News reached out to Sally Kohn for comment. Always a great sport, she told us…

“To be clear,” she said, “I’m talking about ‘free speech’ in principle, not law, since it doesn’t apply here. What does apply legally,” she added, “is that any business can discriminate in any way it sees fit as long as it’s not discriminating against a protected class. Period.”
Kohn wants gays to have that protected legal status.

She added, “I can’t refuse to give a speech to a group based on religion for instance. That would be illegal (and immoral). But I can refuse to give a speech based on a group’s political/issue views. Because [those groups are] not legally protected.”

“Baking a cake is not the same as speech, and when you operate under the laws of our country, you serve everyone. If I were a baker I would serve the Westboro Baptist Church. My free speech protections would protect me from writing “God Hates Fags” on the cake, but not protect me from baking the cake.”

When I asked if a Christian baker was then protected from the act of adding a same sex couple figurine and the name of the same-sex couple to the cake, she said she didn’t want to go into that.

“I don’t want to quote law,” Sally said, “but I’d be happy to refer you to a Constitutional lawyer who could explain this better than I could.”

Breitbart News politely declined the offer.

Laws can be unjust.

This is an ethical argument about who keeps and loses their First Amendment rights once that right becomes a for-profit business product.

This is about an American social compact that is supposed to go beyond the law when it comes to respecting one another’s sincerely held beliefs.

~ end ~

No Corp. 1st Amend? Fine. Then NONE Apply.

Well, who didn’t see this coming, huh? Via the September 19th Los Angeles Times:

High Court May Take Up Religious Challenge to Birth Control Coverage

“The Obama administration set the stage Thursday for another Supreme Court showdown on the president’s healthcare law, this time to decide whether for-profit companies can be forced to provide full contraceptive coverage for their employees despite religious objections from their owners.

The administration’s lawyers asked the justices to take up the issue this fall to decide whether these corporations can claim a religious exemption to this part of the healthcare law.  U.S. Solicitor Gen. Donald Verrilli Jr. called the issue one of ‘exceptional importance’ that needs to be resolved soon.  Dozens of employers across the country have sued to challenge the so-called contraceptive mandate in the new law… (which) says this insurance must pay for standard contraceptives, including the ‘morning after’ pill.

But some employers object on religious grounds. They went to court, arguing that they cannot be compelled by the government to subsidize birth control or abortions. Their legal claims rested on the 1st Amendment’s protection for the ‘free exercise of religion’ and on a federal law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 measure meant to strengthen religious liberty.  The challengers include the Green family from Oklahoma, who own and operate Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., a chain of more than 500 arts and crafts stores that employs more than 13,000 full-time workers… The cases have raised two large issues: Is a for-profit corporation a ‘person’ protected under religious freedom laws? And can a corporation have religious beliefs?

The Greens argue that because they are people, and they own the chain of stores, their religious beliefs deserve protection.  The administration’s lawyers argued, however, that it would be ‘unprecedented’ for a court to extend religious exemptions to corporations. No court has ‘accepted a claim that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act enables a for-profit corporate employer to exempt itself from generally applicable employment regulations,’ Verrilli said… Lawyers for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (said)…  ‘The United States government is taking the remarkable position that private individuals lose their religious freedom when they make a living,’ said Kyle Duncan, general counsel for the group, which also represents Hobby Lobby Stores. ‘We’re confident that the Supreme Court will reject the government’s extreme position and hold that religious liberty is for everyone — including people who run a business.'”

This is extraordinary and welcome.  I’m no lawyer but it’s hard for me to see how you can be a “cafeteria” constitutional republic;  because the root of the government’s argument is: the constitution doesn’t apply to corporations.  Now, they want that to mean the the 1st amendment specifically.  Okay.  Then if the 1st amendment doesn’t apply to corporations, does that mean Muslims don’t have to do business with homosexuals if they don’t want to?  Because if the right to religious freedom does not exist in a corporation, then so does it’s abuse.  If the federal government can dictate which parts of the constitution do or do not apply to corporations, what about slavery?  Hell, if one amendment doesn’t apply, then NONE of the amendments apply, right?  You can’t pick and choose this way, and I pray the majority sees it that way.

Cain Accuser "Wary" of Scrutiny – DUH.

AP is now reporting the supposedly chomping-at-the-bit-with-righteous-indignation-gold-digging-tart is now ‘wary’ of coming forward with her bullsh*t claim on Herman Cain.


Her story is CRAP and she knows it can’t stand scrutiny.  How much more CONVENIENT to hide behind vague innuendo, right?

I have been all over The Politico, Real Clear, everywhere I could leave a comment DARING this woman, BEGGING this woman to come forward.  Know why?

Because I knew it was CRAP.  

I KNEW her story was CRAP because I know this:

If you rely on the conservative maxim that more speech is the answer to the ‘problem’ of free speech it never, ever, ever fails people of principle…

and sends those not so situated scurrying back into the dark where they belong.

Difference btwn Conservatives & Progressives

George Will: ‘I wish the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators long life and ample publicity’

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/09/george-will-i-wish-the-occupy-wall-street-demonstrators-long-life-and-ample-publicity/#ixzz1aJk3ZGtJ

He went on to say, in short, it inures to our benefit.

There it is. Conservatives have the luxury of serene confidence that our arguments, given the sunlight of time, will endure and prevail. Because we’re right; that is to say, correct.

That’s why proggies are so hot to crush free speech. They know that if they don’t control it, their side will self-destruct under scrutiny. Which is exactly what these useful idiots in the OWS movement are doing when news photographers catch them literally cr*pping on a police car. They’re fouling up public spaces, closing down museums, frightening away tourism and commerce in every city they show up in… They’re vile, awful, ignorant people…

…losing the argument, very, very publicly.