RoguesGallery

Half Baked

Supreme Court same-sex marriage ruling will end First Amendment

One of the goals of the Strident Conservative is to be a light exposing the darkness of the lying liars on the left as they spread their radical “transformation of America” agenda. Over the past year, many of the lies have been in the area of same-sex marriage and the intolerance of those who oppose the idea. Now, in light of the Supreme Court decision that “legalized” same-sex marriage in all 50 states, some of the concerns held by folks who support traditional marriage—a union between one man and one woman—are already being realized. While spreading the truth about the consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage, I also challenged those who read my articles or hear me on the radio to take a stand for what’s right and make their voices heard. Thankfully, many of them have said yes! Unfortunately, there are also those who say that these new laws don’t affect them, so they don’t see the need to make a fuss. To those people, I offer this quote from the great Dr. Martin Luther King: According to several outspoken leaders who have been legally engaged with the issue, the redefinition of marriage by the Supreme Court has set up […]

Continue reading Supreme Court same-sex marriage ruling will end First Amendment

. . . → Read More: Supreme Court same-sex marriage ruling will end First Amendment

States rights, same-sex marriage, and the end of the road

For some reason, I made my way to PoliticsUSA.com the other day and I came across a headline that made me question whether or not people actually read. Oklahoma’s Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the state must remove its Ten Commandments monument at the state Capitol because it violates the state Constitution. Article 2, section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution says, “No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.” Now, states are free to decide these types of issues among themselves. However, those who oppose this truth always seem to point back to the establishment clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Merely having a 10 Commandments statue on the capitol is not an establishment of religion, especially if it is privately funded. If Oklahoma had been arresting and throwing their citizens in jail because they didn’t believe in the 10 Commandments, […]

Continue reading States rights, same-sex marriage, and the end of the road

. . . → Read More: States rights, same-sex marriage, and the end of the road

Jesus never taught “tolerance” – A second look after the same-sex marriage ruling

It was just a little over two years ago that Jason Collins, a washed-up NBA player nearing the end of his career and looking for some cheap publicity, announced to the world in a Sports Illustrated interview that he was “a 34-year-old NBA center” who was “black” and “gay.” In the interview, as he tried to justify his sexually deviant lifestyle, he reflected on the “Christian” lessons he learned from his parents, particularly the teachings of Jesus Christ: I’m from a close-knit family. My parents instilled Christian values in me. They taught Sunday school, and I enjoyed lending a hand. I take the teachings of Jesus seriously, particularly the ones that touch on tolerance and understanding. (emphasis mine) Of course, I documented how wrong Mr. Collins was about the teachings of Christ, particularly when it came to how the Son of God doesn’t “tolerate” our sin and the choices we make. I invite you to check it out. So, why am I revisiting this story? Because I believe that in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, which fabricated a constitutional basis to legalize “marriage” between two people of the same gender, we will begin to […]

Continue reading Jesus never taught “tolerance” – A second look after the same-sex marriage ruling

. . . → Read More: Jesus never taught “tolerance” – A second look after the same-sex marriage ruling

Guess What Else The Scotus Approved No One’s Talking About?

 http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iBg07kS23Ak/Twkn9peJTMI/AAAAAAAAC4M/vZdROpr0SN4/s1600/Thought+Crime.gif

In another 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today on Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project that you can be held liable for housing discrimination whether or not you or anyone in your organization actually intended to discriminate.

Mere thought crimes – or as Justice Kennedy put it, “unconscious prejudice” or “stereotyping” is enough to get you used in hiring, renting property or numerous other activities if your decision can be found to have ‘disparate impact’ on the favored protected groups.

This decision was deliberately left quite broad, and it’s a wet dream for race pimps or ‘community organizers,’ not to mention predatory lawyers and the Obama Justice Department.

 http://vaislying.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/VAIS-SHARKS-11shark-lawyers.gif

This nonsense has long been a part of employment law, especially in fascist progressive states like California. Even asking someone about their criminal record, work history or credit can be seen as ‘discriminatory’ in the once Golden State, even if this might have a direct bearing on their suitability for a prospective position. Even references are a thing of the past as most employers will only confirm the person once worked there and will not disclose anything else, even if they were discharged for cause.

This is one reason many employer no longer hire employees per se, but independent contractors as needed.

Now this nonsense is going to be extended to the renting of property, extending credit and even local decisions on where to build housing. It can also be used to force property owners to rent to Section 8 tenants whether they want to or not. And again, things like credit, prior rental history or a prior criminal record don’t matter provided the prospective tenant is part of one of those ‘protected groups.’ Somebody who’s a registered sex offender wants to rent in your building, even though you have families with young children living there? Provided this person belongs to certain groups, you can be sued for  your decision to rent to them or not for any reason based on ‘disparate impact.’

In the actual case the SCOTUS ruled on, there’s another wonderfully Kafka-esque twist. It involves a decision by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs on the location of low-income housing, and as the dissenting opinion points out, no matter where they decide to locate it, they can be sued on the grounds of ‘disparate impact’ by one group or another.

This also plays in nicely with the new Obama diktat on forced neighborhood diversity.

And you thought we lived in a free country?

http://rs293.pbsrc.com/albums/mm64/MsHeart_1958/ROFLMAO.gif~c200

http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/v2/lg-bookmark-en.gif

Continue reading Guess What Else The Scotus Approved No One’s Talking About?

. . . → Read More: Guess What Else The Scotus Approved No One’s Talking About?

‘Constitution? What Constitution?’ SCOTUS Saves ObamaCare

 http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/06/bond_v_united_states_chief_justice_roberts_shows_off_his_best_material/53303230-supreme-court-nominee-judge-john-roberts-meets-with-sen.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg

As I expected, The US Supreme Court today ruled to allow nationwide subsidies on ObamaCare even though they are clearly illegal according to the law as written. The Court’s long awaited decision in King v. Burwell was 6-3 for Burwell, ruling that the federal subsidies can still be paid to states that elected not to establish an exchange, a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment as well as the explicit wording of the law.

Voting with Justices Ginsberg, Sontamayor and Breyer were Justices Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts, whom wrote the majority opinion. While his opinion is a model of illogic and doublespeak, he at least had the honesty to admit that the Court’s majority ignored the actual wording of the law itself as well as the Constitution:

“In this instance,” he wrote, “the context and structure of the act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”

This was challenging, he said, because there were “more than a few examples of inartful drafting that “does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.”

Or to translate this, the law itself is so poorly written, nonsensical and contradictory that the Supreme Court, in its wisdom had to actually rewrite it in order to continue to foist it on the American people.

Justice Roberts is frankly admitting that in this case, politics trumps not only what the law says but the Constitution. This is a classic case of what Lawyers refer to as a Stare Decisis ‘because we said so’ ruling. The actual wording of the law is what Roberts and his cohorts think it should be rather than what it actually is.

Justice Scalia had the right if it, as he frequently does. He read his dissent from the bench, a rare sign of profound disagreement.

In his dissent, Scalia said that we should start calling ObamaCare, “SCOTUSCare.” At the end of his dissent, Scalia wrote, “[t]he somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

Or as Senator Ted Cruz said, if these justices want to write law rather then interpret it, “They should run for Congress.”

He’s exactly right. This is the second time the Supreme Court has rewritten this law, not to mention the times this president has unilaterally (and illegally, I might add) done so.

 http://media.cagle.com/95/2012/03/29/109044_600.jpg

The current ruling went right to the heart of what ObamaCare is all about – reducing benefits, increasing co-pays and raising premiums sky high on the middle class to subsidize all those new migrants the president is bringing in…with, of course, exemptions for the well connected. That includes every member of the Supreme Court, their employees and their families.

Those of the middle class whom can’t pay will be fined by the IRS..and those who can’t afford the co-pays after paying the high premiums to avoid the fine will simply go without care.

 https://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/obamacare-ruling-iv.jpg

This is so far away from the Constitution our Founders bequeathed us or even the normal standards of jurisprudence as to be ludicrous. When judges write law on the fly to suit themselves and their political agenda, then there is no justice and no law.

There are several things to take away from this that are simply self-evident truths.

The Left now noisily celebrating this should understand that this creates a precedent that can be used against them in the future in ways they won’t like. Blatant disregard for justice and the law eventually comes home to roost for those whom champion it.

Second, this ruling doesn’t change the basic nature of ObamaCare. It merely preserves it as a poorly written law that makes no fiscal or common sense whatsoever. Half of the exchanges are already bankrupt or headed that way, because most of those who signed up are people who are taking advantage of full subsidies and pay no premiums anyway. There’s a limit to how far the fiction will stretch until it cracks.

As Europe is now finding out, you can have an immigration society or a lavish welfare state, just not both.Many of the migrants this president is bringing in are going to turn out to be net tax consumers rather than tax payers by a huge margin. States like California are already seeing this at work. Far from helping to cure the deficit, ObamaCare is now estimated to increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.

As President Obama continues his amnesty by executive order, expect this figure to increase markedly.

Congress, of course, could still use the power of the purse to defund ObamaCare. Under the present leadership, I rate the chances of that as roughly the shy side of zero.

Why this is true is unimportant right now, although as I’ve speculated on these pages the unprecedented amount of spying on American citizens, the enormous amount of data collected and President Obama’s past use of such weapons and tactics against his political opponents might be an answer. Apparently I’m not the only one thinking that way.

None of this matters, really. We can be outraged, justifiably so, but as I pointed out yesterday, what really is important right now is answering Tolstoy’s question: what then must we do?

I’ve said before that America’s destiny is either to reaffirm the republic our forefathers bequeathed to us or to become Rome. The powers that be have apparently decided they’re fine with Rome as long as their perks and bottom line are taken care of. Unless we’re prepared to go along with that as a population of pauperized serfs supporting their rule and whatever they decree, we are going to have to band together to institute massive political change using what left of our republic and our rights as citizens..before we lose those as well.

Think this over:

What principles do you stand for, and what are you not willing to compromise on?

What are you prepared to do to change things?

Stay tuned.

http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/v2/lg-bookmark-en.gif

Continue reading ‘Constitution? What Constitution?’ SCOTUS Saves ObamaCare

. . . → Read More: ‘Constitution? What Constitution?’ SCOTUS Saves ObamaCare

Gay Mafia snuffs out another enemy of the family

When Indiana passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act–a law protecting religious freedom–the Gay Mafia objected. As a result, the Republican cowards in the Hoosier State reversed themselves, granting special rights to the homosexual community and criminalizing Christians and other people of faith who choose to exercise their Constitutional right. The fallout from these extortion tactics have since led to other states caving to the homosexual mob, and have emboldened some pro-homosexual politicians at the state level–because every mob owns a politician or two–to call for Nazi-styled branding of businesses who choose to exercise their rights. Even the politicians working for them in Washington have joined the mob in calls for voiding the religious rights of those who object to the homosexual movement and the Gay Mafia. Interestingly enough, it has also led to a bizarro-world type of situation, where businesses are discriminating against Christians who are suffering the negative consequences of allegedly discriminating against homosexuals. Well, they have struck again, this time in Grimes, Iowa, where the owners of a Christian family run business is being forced to shut their doors after being charged with discrimination against a homosexual couple. Betty Odgaard and her husband, Richard, have been the owners […]

Continue reading Gay Mafia snuffs out another enemy of the family

. . . → Read More: Gay Mafia snuffs out another enemy of the family

Obama’s military: Great for homosexuals but not Christians

For nearly two decades, the U.S. Army has provided an honor guard for the Independence Day celebration at Abilene Baptist Church in Augusta, GA, a church that predates the founding of America. Sadly, that tradition has been brought to an end. Officials at Fort Gordon have decided they will not send an honor guard to the July 5th services at the church because it would be a violation of military policy. In a lame attempt to justify the decision, Public Affairs Officer J.C. Mathews stated that officials at Fort Gordon and the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the church’s request and determined that the event was “a religious service.” Here’s how he explained it: “While there are conditions under which the Army can participate in events conducted at a house of worship, we cannot participate in the context of a religious service.” Oh the horror! A religious service in a church? So I guess J.C. Mathews–interesting initials under the circumstances–is saying is that it’s OK for the Army to go to an event held at a church as long as you don’t pray, mention Jesus or read the Bible. For the record, this isn’t just any church. Abilene […]

Continue reading Obama’s military: Great for homosexuals but not Christians

. . . → Read More: Obama’s military: Great for homosexuals but not Christians

Gay Mafia whacks another victim

Following the uproar over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that passed in Indiana—and was subsequently retracted—I wrote a piece about a group that Bill Maher once referred to as the “Gay Mafia.” In that piece, we learned about the hit man tactics used by homosexual-extremists to snuff-out anyone who opposed their radical agenda, especially when that objection was based on religious freedom. A few days later, I wrote another piece about how the bullying tactics used by the Gay Mafia had successfully intimidated Republican governors across America from passing that law in their states. Well, it looks like the Gay Mafia has chalked up another victim. In the wake of an excessively punitive judgement, former bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein were ordered by a judge to pay $135,000 in fines to a lesbian couple because the Kleins refused to bake a wedding cake for the homosexual couple due to their personal religious beliefs. Following the news of the ruling, supporters of the Klein family set up a GoFundMe page to help them pay the fine, and within eight hours, the campaign reached over $100,000. But then, suddenly and without notice, the account was closed. In a statement regarding their decision […]

Continue reading Gay Mafia whacks another victim

. . . → Read More: Gay Mafia whacks another victim

Assault on Christianity in public schools spreading

Two news stories from last week provide evidence of the assault on Christianity and the anti-Christian indoctrination taking place in America’s public schools. First, the Duncan Public School district in Oklahoma has committed itself to a total prohibition of Bible distribution to students, after an atheist organization called the “American Humanist Association” threatened them with legal action for what it called “unconstitutional Bible distribution.” They made the threat after learning that a teacher at Woodrow Wilson Elementary was handing out free Gideon Bibles. According to the third-grade teacher, Erica Mackey, she offered copies of the New Testament to anyone who wanted one. Ane while nearly all of the students accepted the offer, the AHA contends that one child felt “peer-pressured and coerced” to follow his classmates and take one. After receiving the threat via email, lawyers for the administrators cowards at the school district responded by sending a letter to the AHA assuring the anti-Christian radicals that the practice would stop. There are those who feel that the Woodrow Wilson Elementary teacher did nothing wrong—including parents and local residents—but that really isn’t the issue. For the intolerant who demand tolerance, this situation and others like it have nothing to do […]

Continue reading Assault on Christianity in public schools spreading

. . . → Read More: Assault on Christianity in public schools spreading

Jared Polis wants to outlaw “so-called” religious freedom

After radical homosexuals succeeded in using mafia-styled intimidation tactics against the Republican cowards in Indiana following passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, forcing them to reverse the law while providing special rights for homosexuals, the gay mob kicked the machine into overdrive. And, just like a true organized crime family, the gay mafia have a few politicians in their back pockets doing their bidding. In a new move intended to provide special rights for homosexuals while denying constitutional rights for anyone who disagrees with them, Jared Polis (D-CO) has joined in leading a push to pass a Federal LGBT Resolution Opposing Discrimination in opposition to “so-called” religious freedom. An idea that clearly violates the 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…. Joined by Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN), the proposal wold force Christians to provide their services for homosexual events, even if it violates their faith. Carson said it’s “long past time” for Congress to set in stone bans on such decisions based on religion. He asserted “all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity,” need to know they are “valued members of our society.” He concludes with a bit of irony, […]

Continue reading Jared Polis wants to outlaw “so-called” religious freedom

. . . → Read More: Jared Polis wants to outlaw “so-called” religious freedom

Gay Mafia II: The Sequel

Just like the Godfather movie franchise, the Gay Mafia will have a sequel or two, as we see today in Gay Mafia II. Following the successful bullying of the spineless RINOs in Indiana, the Gay Mafia is making an impact on the GOP—which really does stand for Gutless On Principles—across the country. After witnessing the mafia-styled thuggery unleashed on lawmakers in Indiana when they passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, at least three RINO governors—North Dakota, Michigan, and Arkansas—made the decision to pay the homosexual extortionists instead of defending the First Amendment. The message to their fellow lawmakers was loud and clear: We need more laws protecting homosexuals. In North Dakota, the legislature recently voted against a bill that added protection for “gays” in housing and employment. This move angered Gov. Jack Dalrymple, who issued a terse memo to the legislature: “Discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation is not acceptable,” Gov. Jack Dalrymple said in a statement issued after the North Dakota Legislature killed the proposal. Governor Rick Snyder issued a warning to Michigan lawmakers, letting them know in no uncertain terms that he wouldn’t accept any type of religious freedom bill that fails to include specific special protections for homosexuals. Citing […]

Continue reading Gay Mafia II: The Sequel

. . . → Read More: Gay Mafia II: The Sequel

Reaction to Indiana bill proves homosexual agenda is anti-Christian

By now you’ve probably heard about the state Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by the Indiana Legislature and signed into law by Governor Mike Pence. The reason you’ve probably heard about it is because the entertainment industry, the mainstream media—aren’t those the same thing?—and even Democrat presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton, have made the outrageous claim that the law has essentially legalized discrimination, specifically discrimination against homosexuals. But that’s a nothing more than a lie driven by political correctness and a political agenda. Indiana’s religious freedom bill uses nearly identical language and adopts the same approach to the exercise of religious freedom under the First Amendment as the federal bill passed in 1993 and signed into law by Hillary’s husband. By the way, that law passed the House of Representatives unanimously, and fell just three votes of being unanimous in the Senate (97-3). From the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993: Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. From Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act: A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s […]

Continue reading Reaction to Indiana bill proves homosexual agenda is anti-Christian

. . . → Read More: Reaction to Indiana bill proves homosexual agenda is anti-Christian

Homosexual agenda brings tyranny to Houston, TX

It was just a few days ago that I wrote about the tyranny Americans now live under from the judicial, executive, and legislative branches of the federal government. Now comes word of more tyrannical behavior by the government from Houston, TX. and the pro-homosexual city council and mayor. In a clear case of government bullying, the city of Houston has issued subpoenas to a group of pastors requesting any sermons they’ve written that cover the subject of homosexuality, gender identity, or mention of Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. The subpoenas came after pastors protested against Houston’s new non-discrimination ordinance that the city council passed in June which, among other clauses related to sexuality and gender identity, would allow men to use the ladies room and vice versa in an effort to protect transgender rights, according to Fox News. As we saw in my previous piece, tyrannical behavior has come to us from many angles, but an interesting amount of it now comes to us courtesy of the homosexual agenda and the Constitutionally-protected right to religious freedom. As I documented in another article I wrote, when openly homosexual football player, Michael Sam, was in the news, this is an unavoidable situation: “The […]

Continue reading Homosexual agenda brings tyranny to Houston, TX

. . . → Read More: Homosexual agenda brings tyranny to Houston, TX

Tyranny: The new normal

Last week, the government released employment data that showed a drop in unemployment even though the economy remained weak and the country reached a record low labor participation rate. As the left-wing grapples with this disparity between statistics and reality, they have come to adopt an interesting term to describe this failure. They call it the new norm, which has become a way to provide cover for their failed policies while making it sound like it’s not their fault. I’m sure you remember how they did the same thing when Bush was president, right? Of course you don’t. This “new norm” has become a way of telling America to simply accept things as they are because it’s normal. Unfortunately, the new norm has begun to show itself in other areas. Recently, the Supreme Court decided not to decide (which is deciding) on the issue of state’s rights—specifically, the right of the states (i.e. the people) to establish the boundaries on what is considered marriage—when they elected to ignore the appeals of several states that had their laws on the issue overturned by activist judges in several lower courts. Whether you agree with this decision or not—and for that matter, whether you support homosexual marriage or not—really […]

Continue reading Tyranny: The new normal

. . . → Read More: Tyranny: The new normal

A Few Words On ‘Discrimination’ And Freedom

(Credit: Big Earl's Restaurant)

Now here’s a small item that caught my attention.

Apparently a gay couple stopped at a popular restaurant called Big Earl’s Bait House and Country Store in Pittsburg Texas, a middling sized town in the corner of northeast Texas where the Lone Star State meets Oklahoma and Louisiana.

Their story is as follows; they stopped for breakfast,paid up and were told by their waitress not to return because ‘we don’t serve fags here.’

My, my.

Big Earl Cheney, who owns the restaurant has a somewhat different story. The waitress happens to be his daughter, and Cheney says her choice of words was her own.

“I don’t think I should have to discipline her. I think the parents of those children — or kids or being whatever they are — should discipline them or teach ‘em how to act in public. I don’t think it’s my place to discipline her.”

Cheney’s story is that the couple were, shall we say, acting out in public.In other words, their being gay had nothing to do with it, but their behavior did.

“What I saw was one of them half way under the table with his legs stretched out into the other guy’s lap. And he kind of looked really possum eyed at me as they say it in East Texas, he kind of looked at me like ‘uh-oh’.”

“Homosexuality, Blacks, Hispanics — they all come in here — everybody comes in here to eat,” said Cheney. “I’ve served my country for over 20 years; I know what my freedoms are.”

He continued, “I’m not gonna have people coming in here with their butt showing; I’m not gonna have people coming in here naked; I’m not gonna have people coming in here having sex on the tables.”

Now, that is a rather different message than the one his daughter was sending with ‘we don’t serve fags here.’ I’ll leave it to the reader to decide which one applies.

The couple claims nothing inappropriate was going on. I can accept that at face value, but I also recognize that what’s inappropriate might be very different for a gay couple in say, Austin than for an older, heterosexual restaurant owner in East Texas. I would also have to add that if the couple was just sitting there eating breakfast, one would have to wonder why anyone would single them out as gay. How would they tell? Were they wearing a sign?

Cheney has said he would refuse to admit the couple back into his restaurant. The gay couple maintains they were doing nothing wrong and were discriminated against.

As one of them said, “Nobody deserves to be treated disrespectfully at an establishment that just seconds ago accepted their money.”

Needless to say, the gay couple figured lawfare was the best response, but their attorney was unable to help out because of, in his words, local bigotry:

Gay Rights Attorney John Nechman says there really isn’t any legal recourse for Dewberry and his partner to take.

“We don’t have protections in most parts of Texas for Gay and Lesbian people, other than in Dallas, Austin, San Antonio and El Paso,” says Nechman. “There’s really no protections to go after someone because they’ve made a slur. Now if they made a slanderous statement, a libelous statement, where they claimed for example that the two were committing an act that they didn’t do, there would be legal action to take against them.”

Lawyers, of course, love the idea that people have a right to be insulted and to sue at the drop of a hat. It’s called job security.As well as a plague on society.

But let’s examine this from a different point of view.

Two people enter a restaurant. They’re served. Something about their conduct during that transaction makes the owner of the business uncomfortable, and they’re asked not to return, admittedly in non-PC language.

So there are two possibilities…either the couple’s conduct was such that they were told not to ever come back, or the staff and owners don’t like homosexuals.Actually, both take us to the same place.

Has anyone reading this ever been 86’d from a bar or restaurant because of their conduct? I have, once because I decked someone who was drinking and got aggressive with me that I later found out was the bar’s manager and another time because the idiot I was with pinched and groped a waitress.

In both cases, a business decision was made by a privately owned establishment to forgo my future custom by the business in question. Paying money does not give you a license to behave how you please, especially if you’re annoying the other patrons or the staff, and that is a decision only the business in question can make.Actually, many restaurants and bars would even tell heterosexual couples to cool it if they were being overly affectionate in public. There’s a time and place for everything.

But what if the couple was ‘doing nothing wrong’ as they put it, and the restaurant in question is being discriminatory, and simply doesn’t want homosexuals in their establishment?

Let’s say that you own a restaurant and decide, for whatever reason, that everyone who comes in has to wear a tie. The Bel-Air hotel in Los Angeles demands a jacket and tie for all male patrons, and has some particularly gruesome specimens they force any man who comes in to don if he wants to eat and drink there. Because of that, there are a number of people who simply avoid going there, especially in a casual town like Los Angeles.The hotel has made a business decision for a private facility they own to give up a certain amount of income to enforce this policy and ought to have a perfect right to do so.

What about clubs that refuse to admit people if they’re wearing what could be construed as gang colors or gang attire, and clearly post those exclusions? That policy disproportionally affects blacks, but undoubtedly has an affect on safety. Are they being racist, or making a business decision that impacts on their possible liability for any injuries patrons might suffer?

Let’s say you own a restaurant or bar and decide, for whatever reason, that you can’t abide people with blond hair. Same thing. You are making a private decision to indulge your own bigotry at the cost of a fair amount of money, and possibly the hire of some excellent employees.

If Big Earl is telling the truth and he has no problem with homosexual customers provided they act in a manner he feels is appropriate for his restaurant, you can’t call him a bigot,merely a business owner who had made a decision he is entirely entitled to make. If he’s lying and doesn’t want gays in his restaurant, the same thing applies. It is his establishment and his choice to make.

The gay couple likewise have a choice to make. If they feel they were insulted (and it seems they were) there are other places to have breakfast. And they can certainly tell their friends not to patronize Big Earl’s as well.

That’s how a free society ought to work.

http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/v2/lg-bookmark-en.gif

Continue reading A Few Words On ‘Discrimination’ And Freedom

. . . → Read More: A Few Words On ‘Discrimination’ And Freedom

Obama Dept. Of Agriculture SWATS Up With Machine Guns And Body Armor

Under this president, over 70 federal bodies have put together heavily armed SWAT teams, complete with automatic weaponry, drones, MRAPS and other accouterments suited for waging what amounts to domestic warfare. It’s already a matter of record that t…. . . . → Read More: Obama Dept. Of Agriculture SWATS Up With Machine Guns And Body Armor

Cliven Bundy Responds: “That’s exactly what I said.” And What The Real Issue Is

 http://www.mynews3.com/media/lib/166/f/f/e/ffedc6d0-f282-41ea-bf6d-ede186e0116c/Story.jpg

Well, I said earlier I’d wait to hear what Cliven Bundy had to say about what the New York Times quoted him as saying, and credit where credit is due. He didn’t lie, equivocate or issue the sort of faux apology we’ve come to expect from public figures in his situation. Here’s his reply (h/t, The Right Scoop) in full:

“That’s exactly what I said. I said I’m wondering if they’re better off under government subsidy, and their young women are having the abortions and their young men are in jail, and their older women and their children are standing, sitting out on the cement porch without nothing to do, you know, I’m wondering: Are they happier now under this government subsidy system than they were when they were slaves, and they was able to have their family structure together, and the chickens and garden, and the people had something to do? And so, in my mind I’m wondering, are they better off being slaves, in that sense, or better off being slaves to the United States government, in the sense of the subsidies. I’m wondering. That’s what. And the statement was right. I am wondering.”

Now, if President Obama said the sun rose in the west and it didn’t poll well, rest assured he and his media sycophants would telling you really said ‘sets’ instead of rises rather than just admit he said what he said, and that’s that. Cliven Bundy is simply a different kind of man, and as badly wrong as he is here, at least he sticks by it. If the two of us were having a conversation and I asked him how he felt about something, I think the chances are good he’d tell me the truth.With President Obama a conversation based on the reasonable premise of truth would be impossible.

While a lot of people who were championing him before are quite properly distancing themselves from his ridiculous remarks, they aren’t realizing that they’re also distancing themselves from the real issues – that contrary to what you’re hearing, he may in fact have had a legal case of sorts (look up ‘prescriptive easement’ and ‘adverse possession’, especially as they apply to Nevada law for details), that the Bureau of Land Management tried to seize land under false pretenses, that they illegally seized private property without compensation by stealing Bundy’s cattle and shooting them and sent a heavily armed SWAT team to besiege Bundy’s home and act like Nazi stormtroopers in general.

Even the ‘tax issue’ is moot.The normal way the feds act in these situations is to go to court, make their case and if they prevail, slap a tax lien on the property, as well as other legal remedies like vehicle and bank levies. Most of the time, that step isn;t even necessary because the feds and the taxpayer agree to a settlement.The feds didn’t tak ethis to court because they were in a hurry to gift the land to Harry Reid’s cronies for that bogus solar facility, and because they wanted to make an example of Bundy for fighting back.

Those are the real issues, and whether Cliven Bundy is a ‘ra-aaa-acist’ as the Left paints him or not, guess what? He has legal rights,constitutional rights and property right too.And I don’t have to agree remotely with what he said about blacks and slavery to understand that.

If racism is the criteria of whether people have rights or not, then Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and a slew of others I could name belong in the same boat.

http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/v2/lg-bookmark-en.gif

Continue reading Cliven Bundy Responds: “That’s exactly what I said.” And What The Real Issue Is

. . . → Read More: Cliven Bundy Responds: “That’s exactly what I said.” And What The Real Issue Is

Is Cliven Bundy A Racist? And If He Is, What Changes?

http://www.mynews3.com/media/lib/166/f/f/e/ffedc6d0-f282-41ea-bf6d-ede186e0116c/Story.jpg

This comes from Pravda-on-the-Hudson, so it’s highly suspicious. It’s certainly not like they haven’t lied for partisan purposes many times before. But they’re claiming that their reporter overheard Bundy say the following (h/t Hot Air):

Cliven Bundy stood by the Virgin River up the road from the armed checkpoint at the driveway of his ranch, signing autographs and posing for pictures. For 55 minutes, Mr. Bundy held forth to a clutch of supporters about his views on the troubled state of America — the overreaching federal government, the harassment of Western ranchers, the societal upheaval caused by abortion, even musing about whether slavery was so bad.

He said he would continue holding a daily news conference; on Saturday, it drew one reporter and one photographer, so Mr. Bundy used the time to officiate at what was in effect a town meeting with supporters, discussing, in a long, loping discourse, the prevalence of abortion, the abuses of welfare and his views on race.

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Hmmmm. If Cliven Bundy said this – and considering the source and the timing let’s really emphasize that ‘if’ – he’s going to forfeit a lot of sympathy from me and others. ‘Family life’ under slavery certainly existed, but whether it was in ancient Rome or 1840’s Georgia, it was always subject to the owner’s approval and changing financial circumstances at any given time.

That doesn’t change the fact that contrary to what you’re hearing,  he may in fact have had a legal case of sorts (look up ‘prescriptive easement’ and ‘adverse possession’, especially as they apply to Nevada law for details) nor does it change the fact that the Bureau of Land Management tried to seize land under false pretenses, participated in the illegal taking of private property without compensation by stealing Bundy’s cattle and sent and armed SWAT team to lay siege to Bundy’s home and  act like Nazi brown shirts in general.

This purported statement  does serve quite conveniently to distance Bundy from people that were supporting him politically. As such, the timing is pretty suspicious, but I will merely report this, wait to see what if anything Cliven Bundy has to say about this and let you draw your own conclusions.

http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/v2/lg-bookmark-en.gif

Continue reading Is Cliven Bundy A Racist? And If He Is, What Changes?

. . . → Read More: Is Cliven Bundy A Racist? And If He Is, What Changes?

Is Cliven Bundy A Racist? And If He Is, What Changes?

http://www.mynews3.com/media/lib/166/f/f/e/ffedc6d0-f282-41ea-bf6d-ede186e0116c/Story.jpg

This comes from Pravda-on-the-Hudson, so it’s highly suspicious. It’s certainly not like they haven’t lied for partisan purposes many times before. But they’re claiming that their reporter overheard Bundy say the following (h/t Hot Air):

Cliven Bundy stood by the Virgin River up the road from the armed checkpoint at the driveway of his ranch, signing autographs and posing for pictures. For 55 minutes, Mr. Bundy held forth to a clutch of supporters about his views on the troubled state of America — the overreaching federal government, the harassment of Western ranchers, the societal upheaval caused by abortion, even musing about whether slavery was so bad.

He said he would continue holding a daily news conference; on Saturday, it drew one reporter and one photographer, so Mr. Bundy used the time to officiate at what was in effect a town meeting with supporters, discussing, in a long, loping discourse, the prevalence of abortion, the abuses of welfare and his views on race.

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Hmmmm. If Cliven Bundy said this – and considering the source and the timing let’s really emphasize that ‘if’ – he’s going to forfeit a lot of sympathy from me and others. ‘Family life’ under slavery certainly existed, but whether it was in ancient Rome or 1840’s Georgia, it was always subject to the owner’s approval and changing financial circumstances at any given time.

That doesn’t change the fact that contrary to what you’re hearing,  he may in fact have had a legal case of sorts (look up ‘prescriptive easement’ and ‘adverse possession’, especially as they apply to Nevada law for details) nor does it change the fact that the Bureau of Land Management tried to seize land under false pretenses, participated in the illegal taking of private property without compensation by stealing Bundy’s cattle and sent an armed SWAT team to lay siege to Bundy’s home and  act like Nazi brown shirts in general.

This purported statement  does serve quite conveniently to distance Bundy from people that were supporting him politically. As such, the timing is pretty suspicious, but I will merely report this, wait to see what if anything Cliven Bundy has to say about it and let you draw your own conclusions.

http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/v2/lg-bookmark-en.gif

Continue reading Is Cliven Bundy A Racist? And If He Is, What Changes?

. . . → Read More: Is Cliven Bundy A Racist? And If He Is, What Changes?

Matt Yglesias’ Brilliant New Idea – Punish ‘The Rich’ With Confiscatory Taxes!

 Matt Yglesias, Soros galley slave and former WAPO columnist has a great new idea.Let’s make taxes really, really high on the ‘Evil Rich’ to punish them and redistribute their wealth for Big Government’s social engineering purposes!The Laffer Cur…

Continue reading Matt Yglesias’ Brilliant New Idea – Punish ‘The Rich’ With Confiscatory Taxes!

. . . → Read More: Matt Yglesias’ Brilliant New Idea – Punish ‘The Rich’ With Confiscatory Taxes!