Tuesday, December 5, 2017

Should 1st Amendment apply to certain people only?

If a homosexual baker were asked to bake a cake for an anti-homosexual event, should he be forced to do so even if it completely violates his own beliefs? If your answer is "no", then you support freedom of speech across the board, right? Or does it depend on whose freedom is in question?

Jack Phillips, the petitioner in the case currently being heard by the US Supreme Court, is a Christian business owner who welcomes all customers gladly, but occasionally he is asked to create something that violates his conscience, e.g. Halloween themes, divorce parties, Satan's birthday, and most recently, a same sex "marriage" reception. 

Though he offered the homosexual couple in question his services for anything else (meaning he wasn't discriminating against the couple for their homosexuality - just the event that violate his beliefs) that wasn't good enough. After being flipped off by the loving homosexual couple, Phillips promptly learned of the complaint filed against him. The complaint has led to the case currently in front of the Supreme Court.

This is not only a religious rights case, but also a freedom of speech one. In the case of Phillips, the First Amendment protects his work - which is art (a form of expression). To be forced to create art that violates an artist's belief system is a violation of his speech. If that's not true, then a Jewish baker should be forced to bake a Swastika case for a Nazi event. A black sign maker should be forced to make posters supporting a KKK rally. A vegetarian cheese maker should be forced to use rennet, rather than microbial enzymes.

But in Colorado, where this case originates, the state has actually supported bakers' rights to not bake cakes with anti-gay messages if it offends them to do so, because the state of Colorado recognizes that type of freedom of speech. Shouldn't they apply that same standard to Jack Phillips and other Christian business owners?

For those who aren't involved in any type of bakery, photography, banquet or other businesses that may be asked to accommodate same-sex ceremonies on some level, why should this case matter? Because we're already seeing how expansive it's become. 

Aside from Colorado's already demonstrated actions of picking and choosing whose freedoms should be respected, recall the CEO of Firefox, who was fired from his own company for making a financial contribution to California's Proposition 8 to uphold traditional marriage. HGTV cancelled an upcoming real estate show because it was discovered that the two scheduled hosts had previously vocalized their support of traditional marriage. Emergency Services' former top fire official in Atlanta was fired for supporting traditional marriage in Bible study on his own time. In Michigan, a farming couple was recently banned from selling their produce at the local farmers' market because they declined a request to host a same-sex "marriage" ceremony on their farm. It goes on and on.

The homosexual couple in question in this Supreme Court case ended up getting a rainbow cake from another vendor so they could express their support of LGBT activities. That is their right to do so. But don't private business owners have the right to not partake in it? If not, and if instead they are forced to provide work against their will, doesn't that make them slaves? 

The First Amendment specifically allows for and protects our differences. The Supreme Court just needs to uphold that.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Don't believe the headline hype on tax reform

I was talking with a friend the other day who lives in Europe who told me that, thanks to the one sided news people there are getting, mostly from CNN, most there think President Donald Trump is a terrible tyrant and the US is overrun by Nazis, racists and misogynists (thankfully, she doesn’t share these sentiments). She and I also talked about the lie we’re all hearing here: that poor Americans will be hurt by the Republican tax reform plan. 

It's not just cable news that's at fault. Print and web headlines are perhaps an even bigger problem. We're bombarded with so much information, all at our fingertips, that we now pick and choose what we will read in depth. This means many read a lot of headlines, but few articles.

If a person only reads the headline, though, it appears that the poor (and even the middle class) will have ever so much more tax burden. I’m sure that's exactly what the mainstream media are depending on. Here are just a few gems recently pushed out for all to see: “Poor Americans would lose billions under Senate GOP tax bill;”  “Senate Plan Would Raise Taxes On The Poor, Report Says;” “Senate tax bill would cut taxes of wealthy and increase taxes on families earning less than $75,000 by 2027.

Here's how one publication put it exactly: "The committee’s (Joint Committee on Taxation) analysis...found that Americans earning $75,000 a year or less would also face large tax increases by 2027 because of the Senate’s plan to allow individual tax cuts to expire at the end of 2025."

So they are saying the bill will raise taxes because people's taxes will return to where they were when the tax cuts expire? Leaving aside the torturous logic behind that conclusion, it also relies on the premise that the cuts won't be made permanent. It's like saying George W. Bush was raising taxes on the poor by removing 10 million people from the tax rolls but having an end date on the plan in order to comply with reconciliation rules in Congress. Those tax cuts, by the way, were made permanent, for which Obama then proceeded to take credit for lowering taxes by virtue of not raising them.

The left is also claiming that, because the tax bill eliminates the individual mandate on health insurance, then, should the bill pass, millions of people would lose their health insurance. Well, that is nonsense. It only means that millions who are suddenly given the option to abandon the unaffordable, ineffective health insurance program that’s been forced on them would do exactly that: run from it in droves. And though Barack Obama and the Supreme Court tried to obfuscate the matter by calling the mandate a “tax”, a better word for a "tax" that is only paid when you refuse to buy service that you don’t want from a private corporation is “extortion.”

The other lie we’re hearing is that the rich would benefit and the poor and middle class would shoulder the burden. But the liberal elites making this claim should be well aware that the top few percent of wage earners in this country pay about 95% of the income taxes. If the rich did get a large benefit, it's because they are the ones paying the majority of taxes now, so any tax cut will proportionately affect them more. That's a good thing, and doesn't affect the poor negatively. It's not a zero sum game and, besides, the tax cut in question is targeted at businesses. Keeping taxes high on corporations – or raising them even higher – harms the poor and middle class even more because corporations simply pass those increased costs onto everyone else in the form of higher prices, higher fees and fewer jobs. Making America more competitive in the corporate world - which enjoys a 22% corporate tax rate on average in comparison with America's 35% rate - can only help more of us, not harm us.

But the liberal elites prefer to play the game of income equality, identity politics, and class warfare -- none of which, by the way, is a firm foundation on which to correctly run a country or, for that matter, an economic system. How nice if they would stop the false rhetoric already so we could work on common sense solutions to get the country back on track.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary. Or, email me at JMS.TheRightTrack@gmail.com

Friday, November 17, 2017

Political usefulness to the left = immunity

Trying to keep straight all the latest allegations of carnal misbehavior among political elites is challenging. Trying to understand why such misbehavior is sometimes ignored and sometimes condemned is just a matter of politics. 

Take Bill Clinton's accusers from the good old 90s for instance. The women bringing accusations against President Clinton were credible. But they were destroyed by a supposed champion of women: Bill's politically ambitious wife. The media largely backed Hillary in her vicious actions to discredit and destroy these women because, like Hillary, the media and other leftists wanted Bill to be president. Even Bill's eventual confession of some of the abuse didn't dilute his support.

Now Judge Roy Moore of Alabama, known as, horror of horrors, a religious conservative, and who was leading the polls in his bid for the US Senate, is accused of assaulting women in one way or another. I have no idea if it's true (and if so, he needs to go, of course), but to the left, and to establishment RINOs, he may as well have brutally raped these women on film for all the hatred, disgust and chagrin being levied against him.  

But if you're a leftist, like Al Franken, you can have a photograph of yourself groping a woman while she sleeps and you will be praised because you owned up to it, as Franken has in his own way. The female staff of Saturday Night Live, Franken's old haunting grounds, even released a letter praising Franken and thanking him for his apology because "everyone makes mistakes." 

So it's not the horrendous action that's at play. It's how well loved you are - and how useful you are -- to the left that will get you a pass. After all, Franken is a huge supporter of leftist feminists' main prize possession: the right to abortion. They simply cannot lose him, so by no means, should he step down. 

But President Trump's vile comments made to Billy Bush, that didn't involve actual illicit physical contact with women? Well, ask Kathy Griffin and her ilk what should be done with him.

The key, in fact, is that one indeed be politically useful to the left. Now that Bill Clinton is considered expendable by the the leftists who protected him during his predator-while-attorney general-governor-president days, leftist feminists can now take the moral high ground and condemn his behavior. But if he were still in office and could have an impact on leftist (abortion) policy? Save him and condemn his victims at all costs.

Then again, his victims may just get their validation now that Bill is no longer in office. Juanita Broaddrick, who accused Clinton of rape while he was Attorney General of Arkansas, and who was absolutely vilified by women, including Hillary Clinton, who claimed to be pro-women -- is now being apologized to by feminists like Chelsea Handler, who suddenly believes Juanita. I wonder, though, was it worth the wait for Jaunita? Does she need feminists' support now? I doubt it.

Let's face it. If Al or Bill or now the latest one to be accused of sexual misconduct, John Conyers - were Republican or anti-abortion, they'd all be torn apart by the left. So the question is, while the left accuses Republicans of the "war on women" does the left really care about abuse of women, or is it okay as long as the guy doing it has something to offer them politically? I think the left has answered the question quite resoundingly.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary. Or, email me at JMS.TheRightTrack@gmail.com

Friday, November 10, 2017

Are feminists ok with men taking their place? Seems so...

Earlier this year, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced that transgender athletes should be allowed to compete in the Olympics and other international events without undergoing sex reassignment surgery, according to new guidelines adopted by the IOC. Medical officials with the IOC said they changed the policy to adapt to “current scientific, social and legal attitudes” on transgender issues.

Under the previous IOC guidelines, approved in 2003, athletes who transitioned from male to female or vice versa were required to have reassignment surgery followed by at least two years of hormone therapy in order to be eligible to compete.

Now, surgery will no longer be required, with female-to-male transgender athletes eligible to take part in men’s competitions “without restriction”.

Meanwhile, the IOC contends, “male-to-female transgender athletes will need to demonstrate that their testosterone level has been below a certain cutoff point for at least one year before their first competition.”

Hmm. I wonder what 'scientific' research was used to conclude that the only difference between men and women is the level of testosterone? Sexual dimorphism and basic biology seem to have completely passed these medical “experts” by in their rush to demonstrate politically correct inclusiveness. Besides, just how low in testosterone does a man need to go before he is rendered physically weak enough to compete as a “woman” without it being unfair to women?

What I want to know, in fact, is where are the feminists on this? For almost a century now, leftist feminists have been trying to undermine the value of femininity by encouraging women to stop having babies, to abandon domestic home life in favor of work life, and to basically deny their own nurturing nature – all while demanding that society recognize their “true worth”, whatever that is once you strip away all the unique traits that make women, well, women.

But now, it’s gone so far that real women aren’t even necessary. Men are taking their place, at least on the athletic playing field, and actual women are supposed to be okay with pretending that no matter how low the male hormone goes, men will still be physically stronger, and therefore, more successful in physical competition. Where is the feminist roar on that? I don’t hear it.

Thursday, November 2, 2017

Diversity and national security: Where do we draw the line?

In response to the terrorist act committed by Sayfullo Saipov on Halloween, President Donald Trump was right to say political correctness has no place in the war on terror. Unfortunately, it appears political correctness has played a big role in this war in a way that undermines our efforts to stay safe. Back in 2014, for instance, the New York Police Department dropped a program that monitored potential suspects of Islamic extremism.  

Created in 2005, the program, known as the "Demographics Unit", was a simple monitoring initiative that sent plain clothes detectives to mosques and other gathering places for Muslims to see if anyone was pushing extremist rhetoric on the community. While it might seem a bit intrusive, let's not forget that in a city of 8.5 million people with as many as 800,000 Muslim residents in the greater metro area, thousands of people died in an Islamic terror attack in New York City.

The monitoring program was going well until 2014 when Sharia Law advocate and female liberal activist, Linda Sarsour, spoke out against the program. (If her name sounds familiar, it’s because she is the one who organized the Women’s March in DC earlier this year after calling for a “Jihad against President Trump” and publicly expressing her hatred for Israel).

According to Sarsour, as quoted in the New York Times in 2014, "The Demographics Unit created psychological warfare in our community.” She didn't offer any evidence to support that claim, but apparently it was effective enough to get the NYPD’s intelligence chief, John Miller, to agree that the program had to go.

But after Saipov ran his rented truck into pedestrians this past Tuesday, killing eight and injuring about a dozen, it was revealed that he frequented a mosque in Paterson, NJ, that used to be monitored as part of the Demographics Unit program as a possible destination for, “budding terrorist conspiracies."  

Unfortunately, because Linda Sarsour convinced the NYPD that it was politically incorrect for its detectives to monitor “innocent” people, they were unable to monitor at all. But without proper profiling initiatives, how can we expect law enforcement to detect possible nefarious players who want to do us harm?

The people who call such profiling “racially insensitive” first need to be informed that Islam isn’t a race. They then need to be informed that there is nothing “xenophobic” about a real problem that deserves no-nonsense attention and action.  As Americans have proven from the beginning of time, we don’t fear foreigners. We embrace them. In fact, the ones murdered by Saipov this week were foreigners. But we can’t be foolish about the issue. Just ask the Europeans who have been told it’s wrong to put any limits on immigration. 

Too bad Senator Chuck Schumer doesn’t agree. Despite yet another terrorist attack in New York City, he is still pushing the “Diversity Lottery” visa program that brought Saipov to our shores, while pointing a finger at those of us who dare to demand reasonable monitoring of who enters our country, either before they get here or after they arrive. 

But to Chuck, “every immigrant is special,” as he announced this week. Tell me, just how special is an immigrant who murders innocent people? Are we supposed to celebrate him in the name of diversity while continuing to allow an open-border approach to letting anyone in? I don’t know. Maybe we should ask the surviving victims of Saipov for their thoughts on the matter.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary. Or, email me at JMS.TheRightTrack@gmail.com

Friday, October 27, 2017

Women's Convention is anti-woman

In case you haven't heard, a weekend of workshops and strategy sessions are currently underway at the Cobo Center for the Planned Parenthood co-sponsored Women’s Convention in Detroit, an off-shoot of the Women's March that took place following President Donald Trump's inauguration earlier this year. 

The event website landing page announces women are "Reclaiming Our Time" and states participants will learn "strategies for working towards collective liberation for women of all races, ethnicities, ages, disabilities, sexual identities, gender expressions, immigration statuses, religious faiths, and economic statuses." But what exactly is it that these women are reclaiming and from what is it that they want to be liberated? 

It seems to me the only thing women in America need to reclaim is the dignity they squandered with the ushering in of the sexual revolution which took women from being objects of respect and honor (e.g. men used to stand up when a woman entered the room), to objects of sexual expression for men who now have a larger pool of available and willing women who have bought into the notion that "sexual freedom" is an equalizer of the sexes without consequence. We can thank things like The Pill and abortion for that. 
Today's American feminist-protester woman fiercely guards these forms of "reproductive rights" because she claims they allow for the freedom to pursue careers and education without the burden of pregnancy and child rearing, and because they allow women to "be like men" in unfettered promiscuity (of course, I'm not saying that all men, by default, engage in such practices themselves). 
Truth be told, the only ones made "free" by these contraptions of contraception are the men who now no longer have to marry a woman in order to have conjugal relations with her, since the reduced risk of pregnancy causes both men and women to feel a false sense of freedom to be "casual" with one another. But from a strictly physical sense, due to different hormone levels released during intimacy, many men have no problem being physical with a woman he does not love, and then moving on to the next willing partner. Women being women, however, will never be free from the hormone-induced emotional attachments that form during such types of physical intimacy, and so they are often left feeling abandoned, hurt, and used. Anything but equal.
They're also the ones holding the bag in terms of physical consequences. Artificial oral contraception is a known carcinogen, and just one abortion in the first trimester increases a woman's chance of developing breast cancer by huge margins. In fact, over 120 studies conclude this fact, but the National Cancer Institute and other prominent organizations refuse to even acknowledge these findings, let alone push for government mandates to warn women of the risks. 

It's funny how just seven studies showing the link between tobacco and cancer was enough to prompt federal regulations mandating a warning on all cigarette packages, but something so bad for women goes unchallenged. Isn't that what's really anti-woman? 
As far as "liberation" of these women goes, aside from, say, extreme military front-line combat-type situations, tell me one right denied to today's American woman that is granted to a man. To me it seems, then, that what these women want to be liberated from is their responsibility to pay for their own abortions and contraception. It seems they demand to be liberated from others' rights to live religious beliefs in the public square. Perhaps they demand to be liberated from those who live by a Judeo-Christian worldview who refuse to participate in same-sex "wedding" ceremonies. Perhaps "Woman Marchers" don't want believers to be able to preach God's commandments regarding killing when it comes to things like abortion. Or maybe they don't want a man who once said something gross about women to be our president, but they, like Rose McGowan who spoke today at Cobo Hall, remain silent about true sexual predators like Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein. Perhaps being liberal gives perverts a pass, while these protesting women demand liberation from phantom oppression. 
But what about those women who believe in God and try to live according to His law? The convention website may say the event is open to women of all "faiths", but would women who are pro-life and who live by biblical principles actually be welcome at this Women's Convention? Or is it just for those who reject the Bible's teachings and who cling to every false cause they can embrace in order to have something to complain about? 

If you want to find out, plan on being at Cobo Hall tomorrow, Oct. 28, from 8:30-11 am for the counter-convention gathering of  pro-life women who reject the leftist worldview and embrace true womanhood and the sanctity of life, as designed by God. Let's let it be known that the "Women's March" women don't represent all women, not by a longshot.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary. Or, email me at JMS.TheRightTrack@gmail.com  

Friday, October 20, 2017

The protest of decency

Governor Rick Snyder’s office said it will not ask the Michigan State Police director to resign after she shared a meme on Facebook critical of NFL protests, calling protesters degenerates.

Col. Kriste Kibbey Etue, the highest ranking official at the MSP, posted the following on her private Facebook account late last month:.

"Dear NFL: We will not support millionaire ingrates who hate America and disrespect our Armed Forces and Veterans. Who wins a football game has ZERO impact on our lives. Who fights for and defends our nation has every impact on our lives. We stand with the Heroes, not a bunch of rich, entitled, arrogant, ungrateful, anti-American, degenerates. Signed, We the people."

She apologized for it shortly thereafter following an outcry from those who can dish it out, but cannot take it. Said Etue, "It was a mistake to share this message on Facebook and I sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended,"

Still, calls for her to resign were loud and clear. As state Rep. Sheldon Neeley, D-Flint, put it, "It is clear that Col. Etue does not understand the nature of the protests, nor respect the constitutional rights of citizens to peacefully protest."

But what exactly is being protested? The protests are springing from the “Black Lives Matter” movement, which was founded on a false premise. Protesters claim that Michael Brown of Ferguson, MO, was shot to death by police as he held his hands up in surrender, yelling, “Don’t shoot!” Not true. According to black witnesses who testified under oath, Brown was leaning in the open window of the police car pummeling an officer, who then shot him in self defense. Another white police officer in a separate case shot to death a black man in the back as the victim was running away. That police officer, rightly so, is in jail. Every case is different, and when a police officer does something deliberately wrong he should be dealt with to the full extent of the law. When thugs deliberately threaten the very lives of police, they should be stopped.

Yes, there is individual racism in our country, there are some bad cops, and there are jerks in general. But let’s look at the double standards here. Very financially well-off and coddled athletes want to kneel to protest non-systemic grievances, and expect support and applause in the name of freedom of speech - while men and women much less wealthy are dying to protect their freedoms. But when a police official exercises that same right on her personal social network, she is excoriated and expected to resign. When a high school coach kneels on the football field, not in protest, but in praise of God, he is fired. But to kneel in protest of false premises? That’s supposed to garner worldwide support.

It's funny how NFL athletes don't want to protest the violence against police, or how about they protest the domestic violence and other deviance committed by members of the NFL themselves, or Hollywood moguls, for that matter. But maybe they think they're above actual degenerate behavior. So instead of fighting real evil, they need to find something else to moan about. 

Unfortunately, the only thing the anthem protesters are accomplishing is further division, and the stripping of one more piece of Americana from America, one more bit of innocent tradition, one more chance at unity. The national anthem stands for all of us and is a way for all of us to acknowledge the freedoms that few others in the world enjoy. But like the rest of the left, if it's something patriotic and decent, then it is something that should be protested.