skip to main |
skip to sidebar
In case you may have missed it, ladies and gents, further proof that liberals are hell-bent on tossing the First Amendment into the refuse bin, along with the Second, came earlier this month.
A few weeks ago, Oregon administrative law judge Alan McCullough said in an interim order that the owners of the suburban Portland-located Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery, Aaron and Melissa Klein, discriminated against a lesbian couple by refusing to make a wedding cake for them. There will be a hearing on March 10, but the judge could have dismissed the case and awarded the Kleins compensation for court costs and attorney fees.
However, because Mr. and Mrs. Klein are Christian, there was no way that was going to happen.
When the gay couple Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman entered the bakery over two years ago, in January 2013, seeking a wedding cake for their nupitals, they were not surprised that Sweet Cakes essentially said, "sorry, but no." There are tons of liberal-minded bakeries—it's Portland, for Pete's sake—that they could have gone to for their cake.
In other words, Cryer and Bowman engaged in a sting operation. They simply wanted to bully a Christian couple out of their livelihood and they likely will succed since there seems to be a belief in the U.S.A. these days that discrimination based on sexual preference trumps an American citizen's Constitutionally enshrined right to freedom of religion.
While the lawyer for the lesbians cited the right of all people to be treated equally in a privately owned business, persuant to Oregon state law, the Kleins's attorney Anna Harmon called the judge's ruling a "wrong and dangerous result for religious liberty and rights of conscience in Oregon," and added that "Americans should not have to choose between adhering to their faith or closing their business, but that is what this decision means."
I couldn't agree more.
Aaron Klein told Fox News's Todd Starnes, who has been following the Kleins's case, that not only did he receive threats, but so did any suppliers or vendors to the bakery or any place that used Sweet Cakes for catering services:
"The LGBT activists inundated them with phone calls and threatened them [the suppliers]. They would tell our vendors, 'If you don't stop doing business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa, we will shut you down.' It's a sad day for Christian business owners and it's a sad day for the First Amendment. The LGBT attacks are the reason we are shutting down the shop. They have killed our business through mob tactics."
The great majority of Christians, 99.9 percent of them, would not say that stoning is an acceptable punishment to mete out on homosexuals. Another religion is notorious for advocating or actually carrying out such draconian responses to gays in their midst. Yet, are we going to witness the deliberate goading of a halal establishment by the LGBT community anytime soon?
The case against the Kleins and Sweet Cakes is, alas, not an isolated incident. In 2014, in the U.K., in the first ever case in this country in which an organization has been told that it must participate in a gay rights campaign, Ashers Bakers of Belfast came under fire from the Equality Commission for not producing a cake emblazoned with the slogan of a local gay campaign group, Queerspace. The bakery has now predictably had to face court action against it, which will begin next month.
The incoming Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Rev. Ian McNie, said, "They should have the right to determine what they do as a bakery and they should be tolerated", while the Christian Institute's Northern Ireland Officer Callum Webster said that "This is not what the equality laws are meant to do. We cannot sleepwalk into becoming a nation where coërced speech is acceptable."
Ashers Bakers employs 62 people. I would reason that in an age of insecurity over jobs, it would not be wise to put people out of work for frivolous reasons should the business collapse upon a possible losing judgment. But that's just me.
To give credit where credit is due, veteran gay campaigner Jeffrey Dudgeon, who worked to help decriminalize homosexuality in Northern Ireland, said the Equality Commission case against Ashers has gone too far. "I am nervous of gay zealotry, or any type of zealotry against Christians," Dudgeon said. "I am concerned that the Equality Commission have now added political discrimination to the discrimination on sexual orientation as a ground on running their case against Ashers."
Dudgeon's voice, however, is one that is lost in the wilderness. I hope the gay community at large is proud of these actions, whether it be here or across the pond. They crow all the time about the need for anti-bullying measures for gay people, but they have amongst them the most vicious, close-minded thugs when it comes to respecting other's peoples beliefs and lifestyles.
Don't hold your breath waiting for any denouncements of this behavior from the larger community that shelters these nogoodniks. As is always the case in groups where militancy is rife, it's "see no evil, hear no evil."
Today's the day, dear reader. I don't know if you'll require a government license to read me or if you'll simply have to put up with 100 pop-ups that you can't block that will ask you if you'd rather read the The Huffington (Puffington) Post, Salon.com, or—God help us—Rumblelizard blogs. (Yes, I know you haven't heard of the last one. There's a reason for that.)
The Federal Communications Commission has voted to impose net neutrality in the U.S. Your formerly free-market internet will now be treated as a public utility.
As of last spring, we have net neutrality over on these shores. But there's a difference. All ISP data is treated equally with no price controls. According to David Meyer of the tech site Gigaom, in a very competitive market such as the U.K.'s, it would be "very difficult for providers to jack up their prices without losing customers."
This, in theory, is what net neutrality should mean for the U.S. It would stipulate that cable firms behind data-intensive services such as video-on-demand and cloud storage would not have to pay fees to internet service providers so that this particular type of internet traffic would not be slowed down. This is why Netflix has said it supports net neutrality, but it has instead offered to pay the Comcast fee for enhanced access.
Just as with the (Un)Affordable Health Care Act, the so-called Obama-net will mean less choice. Obama-care was meant to provide coverage to the uninsured, but it has forced many Americans into paying higher premiums with limited choice of doctors or hospitals while still rewarding insurance companies and discouraging full-time employment. Many Americans enrolled in Obamacare have had to take two or three part-time jobs to take the place of their previous full-time employment.
The Obama-net is being touted as a way to enshrine fair treatment of all Web content. But the Obama administration seeks to impose "fairness" through the net neutrality regulation, which means that government permission is now required for those who wish to set up a website. Be prepared to wait five years for that. Also, price controls written into the regulation dictate that the cost of a service over the web that doesn't qualify as "just and fair" can either be increased to discourage consumers from using it or reduced to the point where the the website is devalued, preventing it from making a profit.
So, it appears that a "free and open internet" will work out, as you might expect, as expeditiously as "free" healthcare. The regulations now classify broadband service as a public utility persuant to the Communications Act of 1934 to regulate interstate and foreign wire and radio communication. In other words, the U.S. is now basing internet connection on an 81-year-old regulation. What does that tell you?
I invite everyone to check out a paper entitled "Towards a just and fair Internet: Applying Rawls’ principles of justice to Internet regulation". John Rawls was a Ph.D in moral philosophy and former Princeton professor who wrote A Theory of Justice in which he argued for the "socially just" distribution of goods in a society. Read that, then tell me that this this sort of proposal in favor of distributive justice didn't influence Obama with respect to net neutrality regulation.
There is always something sinister behind this man's works. Tell me true, do you trust a man who seeks to wreck the country with an amnesty that defies the Constitution to regulate not just your health care but now your internet? I thought not.
The internet in America used to be the envy of the rest of the world that had net neutrality. It was the last vestige of American life that encouraged competition and operated entirely from the free market. Now, there's yet another thing America has lost.
I hope all the Obama voters enjoy their regulated internet. Unregulated weed is apparently the only thing these people care about.
Here we go. The racially charged fun just never ends.
Earlier last week, fans of the English Premier League soccer team Chelsea FC went to Paris to watch their team take on a continental rival, Paris Saint-Germain. After the game, a group of seven Chelsea fans, whom the French authorities have since identified, pushed a black man named Souleymane S. off the Metro (subway) train and prevented him from boarding. They were chanting "We're racist and that's the way we like it."
No-one's arguing that this isn't despicable behavior, that it's completely unacceptable and that these fans shouldn't be banned forever by Chelsea. If they want to act stupid like that, then it's entirely in line that they should never be able to attend another one of their beloved team's games.
Yet, here's the thing: The whole of Paris, the whole of France, the whole of Britain, the whole of the world has got Souleymane S.'s back as if he had gotten a water cannon turned on him. French President Francois Hollande has spoken with the man while Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho has invited him to the second match between the two teams at their Stamford Bridge home turf.
Is it just me, or is everyone over-reacting? The man ran into a group of assholes. End of. It could have been any PSG fan. Do you honestly think that if a white fan of the French side had got shoved off the train, it would have made the news? Do you think that it would have made the media rounds if these Chelsea fans had pushed a white Frenchman off the train, hurling "froggy" and "cheese-eating surrender monkey" at him and proudly claiming racism for their actions?
The answer: It might have made the news in France. It would not have come close to being mentioned in the British or American papers. In America, no-one knows where France is anyway. It may as well be on the Moon as far as most Americans' grasp of geography is concerned. But I digress ...
Firstly, the fact of the matter is that Chelsea has a reputation for insensitivity. They have been known for their anti-Semitic chants whenever they play Tottenham Hotspur, a team whose fans have maintained a Jewish identity (even if many of them are not Jewish).
Secondly, black people hurl other black people off subway trains all the time. At least in New York City they do. I've seen YouTube videos.
I don't blame Mr. S. for being annoyed and frustrated. However, I don't think he deserves to be a cause célèbre. This is not exactly Dreyfus Affair redux. In the minds of our Leftie-dominated society and culture, what happened to Souleymane S. was a far worse humiliation—he was a victim, you see. Dreyfus only had Émile Zola on his side. This guy has got the entire denizens of hashtag universe, souls who think we ought to constantly be on our hands and knees in front of anyone who isn't Caucasian. Do we now have a duty to mollycoddle this person for the rest of his life?
Souleymane S. has spoken of his horror at the incident and that he cannot bring himself to take the Metro anymore. My advice to Mssr. S.? Grow a pair. You got bullied. It happens. A lot of other people have had the unfortunate experience of running into types like those fans. They hate every single thing that isn't exactly like them, including other white people. You're not alone. They were chanting about being racist to further annoy you. Stop being a crybaby, and stop milking your experience, and get on with your life.
I do have to wonder though: Obama could not be bothered with attending the biggest rally in Paris's history in favor of people's rights to free speech, thought and expression. Maybe this will finally get him out to Paris?
Prince Charles has subjected us to some pretty inane stuff in the past regarding the need to cull grey squirrels, his belief in man-made climate change and his antipathy to skyscrapers. (Your Royal Highness, London would be a joke if it didn't have skyscrapers. Tall buildings project power and importance, like it or not.)
But recently, Charles actually spoke about something relevant to everyone who values their freedoms and livelihoods.
On February 8, the Prince of Wales visited Jordan, the refugee camp of Zaatari in particular, which is home to 160,000 people who have fled the war in Syria. The Daily Mail reported that the Prince "looked anguished as he listened to the shocking stories of families who have been forced to flee their homes, often at great personal cost."
The heir to the throne said that the plight of Middle Eastern Christians is "a most agonising situation."
Prince Charles also met with King Abdullah II, to whom he related the stories he heard from Christian Iraqis who he had met earlier in the day. At a religious conference in Amman, with the King of Jordan present, the Prince said:
"Yesterday evening, I met a group of Iraqi Christians who have experienced His Majesty's immense compassion first-hand. People driven from their homes by individuals who adhere to a perverted and brutal misinterpretation of Islam, these Christians I met yesterday have found sanctuary in Amman thanks to His Majesty's generosity."
Really, Charles? You didn't cite the Crusades and the alleged bruality of Christian soliders 1,000 years ago? You didn't tell the King and others in the audience to refrain from getting on their high horses?
The Prince went even further. Before his trip to the Middle East, he talked of his unease with the radicalization of young Muslims in Britain and the situation faced by Middle Eastern Christians. Charles told the BBC Radio 2 program The Sunday Hour of his misgivings regarding Islam in Britain and Christianity in the Middle East:
"I have deep concern for what so many of the Eastern Christian Churches are going through in the Middle East. I just felt that it was very important to show that sympathy with them but also in a way that might draw more attention to their plight. [I]n a country like ours where you know the values we hold dear. You think that the people who have come here, born here, go to school here, would abide by those values and outlooks. The frightening part is that people can be so radicalized either by contact with somebody else or through the internet...I can see I suppose to a certain extent, some aspect of this radicalization is a search for adventure and excitement at a particular age."
The Prince has said, in that last sentence, that the state has failed all these people that it allowed in through its quest for diversity and tolerance and multicultarism. And he's dead-on target. Great Britain has let them in, but has not ensured, in any way, that they will respect and abide by British values.
Just when you thought the Prince could get no better, he spoke with the new leader of Saudi Arabia, King Salman. Charles introduced the subject of the blogger of Raif al-Badawi who was sentenced to ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes to be administered over the course of twenty weeks, all for the crime of "insulting Islam through electronic channels". Al-Badawi's health has deteriorated rapidly since the first 50 lashes were administered and if the whole 1,000 are carried out, it is unlikely that he would survive. That would be ironic considering that al-Badawi was spared the death penalty as he was cleared of the charge of apostasy in 2013.
Amnesty International has condemned al-Badawi's punishment and praised Prince Charles for approaching the subject with the Saudi king. Did the Dear Leader, Barack Hussein Obama, bring up al-Badawi's case when he attended the funeral of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, as his wife Marxist Moo-chelle huffed and puffed and pouted? Seriously, go to Google, type in "Obama Raif al-Badawi" and you will find nothing. Cue the crickets.
You see, dear reader, Prince Charles seems to take seriously his standing as a major representative of Britain, even though he is, in reality, a mere figurehead. He uses his standing to advance the cause of human rights for Christians and liberal Muslims. It would be nice to have a leader like this, wouldn't it? But aside from the Orange Man inviting Benjamin Netanyahu to speak at a joint session of Congress, I can't think of any opposition to the Terrorist-Sympathizer-in-Chief's agenda.
It's time we took "Leader of the Free World" away from the holier-than-thou, so-called President and gave it to Prince Charles. With his actions and words this month, he's earned it in a way that we can only dream of Obama doing.
Ladies and gents, can the imposter in the Oval Office get any more ridiculous than he did this past week?
You have no doubt heard—because if you read me, it means you're intelligent and you're aware of the geopolitical situation—about the absolutely sickening video that ISIS released of their captured Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasaesbeh and how they cremated him alive. Kasaesbeh was reportedly a devout Muslim, but that did not spare him the irrational wrath of ISIS. Jordan is now on the warpath against what the King himself, Abdullah II, has admitted are savages. I dearly wish the Jordanian leader had said to Obama during their meeting, "we're dealing with this horror because you didn't sign the Status of Forces agreement with respect to Iraq." But the King is a gentleman.
Remember from your history books the days when kings used to be head military commanders and take part in the fighting themselves? Abdullah II has quoted Clint Eastwood from the film Unforgiven that summarizes his planned response to the brutal murderers of ISIS: "Any son of a bitch takes a shot at me, I'm not only going to kill him, I'm going to kill his wife and all his friends and burn his damn house down." It is thought that the King of Jordan will partake in airstrikes against ISIS targets.
What is the American President's response to the video that so enraged the King, Queen Raina and the population of Jordan?
"You know, I just got word of the video that had been released. I don’t know the details on the confirmations. Should in fact this video be authentic, it’s just one more indication of the viciousness and barbarity of this organization.
And it I think will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of a global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated. It also indicates the degree to which whatever ideology they are operating off of, it’s bankrupt."
Ummm, viciousness and barbarity? He's on track with barbarity, but how about "evil"? Organization? It's not the Association of Enterprise Architects or the Urban Land Institute, Mr. President. It's a global coalition of terrorists, a metastasizing cancer on the Middle East. And their "ideology" is not "bankrupt". Their poisonous charter, their mission statement, is attracting thousands to their ranks on a constant and consistent basis. And what does ISIS do with recruits who decide that the lifestyle isn't for them? Not that I particularly care, but they kill them, Dear Leader. They track them down and they kill them.
This isn't bad enough. Days after ISIS released their agitprop, Obama engaged in the moral equivocation typical of the Left at the National Prayer Breakfast, dragging Christianity into the foray where it has no place.
The National Prayer Breakfast, a tradition that just had its 63rd anniversary, is, according to Sam Rohrer of The American Pastors Network, "a time to come together for fellowship and prayer in the Spirit of Jesus." Rohrer said that at the 63rd NPB, the Prez "turned it into an event that worships the god of political correctness while attempting to create some feeble moral parity between Christians and radical Islamic terrorists." Ben Carson, in an interview with Greta Van Susteren of FOX News, said that alleging that Christians "are no worse than other people have been in the past" is "absolutely irrelevant". Dr. Carson also said that "having a leader who doesn't seem to understand what a basic school child might understand is somewhat worrisome."
Here's a direct quote from Obama's speech at the National Prayer Breakfast: "And lest we get on our high horse and think this [murder and intolerance in the name of religion] is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ."
Spoken like a man who does not know history. The Crusades were launched in response to the nearly complete takeover of Europe by the the Muslim world at that time. Abolitionists were led by Christians, and the civil rights movement was spearheaded by those who believed in Christ. Martin Luther King Jr. was a minister, as were so many others during the fight for civil rights during the '50s and '60s.
Why does Obama not know history? Is he simply towing the Leftie-liberal line which has to equate Christian fighting in the Crusades to the current savagery of radical Islam? Or is he, as so many Right-wingers have for a long time asserted, a Muslim himself? I used to question that, thinking, "c'mon now, let's not step over the line in rejecting what the man stands for." Now I'm not so sure.
For a man who has promised transparency, he is very secretive with respect to his religious affliation as well as birthplace and college transcripts.
Two more years with this charlatan in office and what amounts to precious little opposition to him in Congress. It's the stuff of nightmares.
London's sharp-witted mayor Boris Johnson recently portrayed radicalized members of the Islamic community as "wankers" and "losers".
Speaking to The Sun newspaper on the subject of an MI5 report into Muslim extremism, Johnson said that young men who dedicate themselves to jihadism "typically will look at porn. They are literally wankers. Severe onanists."
The mayor also said that a lot of jihadist anger stems from an inability to get along with females.
"They are tortured," Johnson continued. "They will be very badly adjusted in their relations with women, and that is a symptom of their feeling of being failures and that the world is against them. They are rejected by women, they are not making it with girls, and so they turn to other forms of spiritual comfort—which, of course, is no comfort. There's no question that they lack self-esteem and that they lack boundaries and that they feel like losers."
Mr. Johnson topped it off with an understatement. "I don't think there's anything remotely controversial about what I have said."
Can there be any doubt that Johnson is absolutely correct in his assessment? You would have to be the rankest bleeding-heart, do-gooder to condemn him for these comments or his stated desire from last year that one of the British members of ISIS, "Jihadi John," be killed in a bomb attack. Those who feel that anything is wrong with what Boris Johnson has said—and you know they're out there (in more ways than one)—regarding Islamic militants have the problem. Johnson is saying what needs to be said, and God bless him for it.
If only we had more politicians of his mettle.
