'Duck Dynasty' debacle shows left's complete intolerance & hypocrisy

During a GQ interview, "Duck Dynasty" patriarch Phil Robertson expressed his views on homosexuality, acknowledging his agreement with the Bible, which declares it a sin. He has now been suspended from the hit A&E show for his views.

In a statement, A&E said it was extremely disappointed to hear Robertson's remarks, which it said were based on his personal beliefs and do not reflect those of the A&E Network -- which considers itself a friend of the lesbian and gay community (it's just not a friend of different opinions, apparently). Human rights groups and GLAAD have also chimed in, slamming Robertson for his "vile" comments.

It's interesting, though, how we didn't hear human rights groups, N.O.W. or any other leftist group chime in when MSNBC host Martin Bashir said on air recently that someone should do unspeakable things in Sara Palin's mouth. Bashir has since resigned, but MSNBC gave him the dignity of remaining on air for two more weeks and allowed him to give a farewell statement, rather than firing him on the spot for his own vile comments.

But Bashir gets a pass in general by the mainstream media and others because his personal views are of the leftist variety in general. And as one sympathetic commentator put it, "while I don't agree with Bashir's statements, it is a free country."

Yes, it is a free country - for people like Bashir. But each day that passes it's becoming less of a free country for people like Robertson, whose views are based on Judeo-Christian principles not in line with the leftist world view of anything goes. Instead of tolerating people like Robertson - the left, who markets itself as the champion of tolerance - is waging a systematic silencing campaign against Robertson and anyone else who refuses to fall in line with leftist thinking.

Of course A&E has the right to fire Robertson if it chooses, but the fact that it's firing him simply for violating their stifling speech codes is what's so worrisome.

Consider the baker in Colorado who is being forced by a judge to bake wedding cakes for a same-sex couple, despite the fact it violates his Christian beliefs to do so. The Senate has voted for a bill that allows any homosexual who gets fired to sue for discrimination, regardless of the reason for his termination. Christian employers are being forced to provide for contraception and abortifacients that violate their faith teachings. The military is consistently trying to officially designate Christian evangelicals as a "hate group." San Antonio and other cities' anti-discrimination laws protect gays, but stifle Christians' free speech rights, while schools, cities and other public places are doing everything they can to ban Christmas - or anything Christian related - from even being mentioned.

A&E's actions against Robertson aren't so much a case of employer/employee disgruntlement as it is a very public example of how it feels Christians should be treated in general. While the network was happy to rake in millions of dollars off the popular Robertson show - of which the family's Christian principles are a centerpiece - for Robertson to express those beliefs anywhere else is grounds for termination. Why? Is A&E that afraid of gay activists who are furious that Robertson would dare to speak about his faith in a way that doesn't endorse homosexuality outright? It doesn't matter that Robertson also said we should love and respect homosexuals. The fact that he believes in Biblical teachings on it overall is the problem.

Where will it stop? As an increasing number of private corporations in a post-bailout era are dependent on government use of tax money in order to survive, consider how long it will be before a company's views on homosexuality will be a litmus test for how 'deserving' it is of government support. And as the increasingly bold speech-police state envelops this country, how much more common will it be that employees at these companies - a.k.a. private citizens - will be fired simply for speaking about their beliefs, while homosexuals are given preferential, protected treatment? 

Last time I checked, a free and mature country is one that allows for diverse views, beliefs and thoughts. But according to the supposedly tolerant left, freedom of speech only applies to the extent that you believe and think the same way they do. If you don't, and if you believe in Christian principles, be prepared for the forces of scorn to be unleashed upon you - and worse. The left says conservatives are the ones trying to force their morals on the country, but it is conservatives who are being forced to walk the "acceptable" leftist line, or else. 

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

iTunes approves "gay" app for children

Question: “If you’re gay and new to an area, how do you find out where gay people hang out?” Simple. Just get Distinc.tt, the newly approved app for iOS-based phones and tablets, now available in Apple’s iTunes for users 12 years old and older. Yes, 12 years old.

How does Distinc.tt work? It tracks users’ locations through GPS. This means your local friendly pedophile will know that a pre-teen child who has downloaded the app is at the mall, the arcade, the local movie theater, or any nearby location convenient to the pervert who’d like nothing more than to know where to find such young, impressionable kids.

Similar homosexual dating apps require users to be 18 years and above because the makers of these apps acknowledge they’re mostly used for arranging anonymous sexual encounters. But Apple has no problem allowing children to use it, even describing it as the only family-friendly “LGBT app that you can bring home to Mom,” according to Distinc.tt CEO Michael Belkin.

Unfortunately if Mom’s little loved one forgets to turn off the app’s tracking device, predators will know exactly where to find him or her.

While the app is also available for Google’s Android operating system, that company has limited its availability to users 18 and older. Only Apple has approved Distinc.tt for use by minor children. I’m sure NAMBLA members nationwide are rejoicing.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Do LGBT rights trump religious rights?

A Colorado judge ruled last week that a Christian baker should be forced to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples despite the fact that homosexuality violates the baker's religious beliefs. The judge, Robert N. Spencer, also ruled that Jack Phillips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, will face fines if he continues to try to live his faith by turning away gay couples who want to buy wedding cakes.

"The undisputed facts show that Respondents (Phillips) discriminated against Complainants because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage," Spencer wrote.

Last year, David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited the Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. The couple had planned to marry in Massachusetts and hold a reception in Colorado.

Phillips told the men that he could not bake their cake because of his religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage. He offered to make them any other baked item, but not a wedding cake. Instead of going to any other bakery that would have baked them a cake, the couple opted to file a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division.

"Being denied service by Masterpiece Cakeshop was offensive and dehumanizing especially in the midst of arranging what should be a joyful family celebration," Mullins said in a statement. "No one should fear being turned away from a public business because of who they are."

And nobody should fear the government's power to make us deny our deeply held religious beliefs either. But that's exactly what is happening (and not just in this baker's case, but in other cases around the country). What we're seeing is that homosexuals' rights are being given more credence than citizens' religious rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. 

Not surprisingly, the ACLU of Colorado is celebrating the judge's ruling as a major victory for "gay rights." 

"While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one's religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers," ACLU staff attorney Amanda Goad said in a statement. "No one is asking Masterpiece's owners to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple."

Phillips was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal firm specializing in religious liberty cases. Attorney Nicolle Martin condemned the judge's ruling.

"America was founded on the fundamental freedom of every citizen to live and work according to their beliefs," Martin said in a prepared statement. "Forcing Americans to promote ideas against their will undermines our constitutionally protected freedom of expression and our right to live free."

Martin said this was simply a case of a baker who declined to use his personal creative abilities to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony. "If the government can take aware our First Amendment freedoms, there is nothing it can't take away," she said.

Martin added that Phillips is a devoted Christian who has an unwavering faith. She said he is a person of such deep faith that he won't even bake Halloween-themed treats – at all.

"He's just trying to live within a certain set of biblical principles because he believes that he answers to God for everything that he does," Martin said. "It sends a message not just to other business owners, it sends a message to Americans – that if the government can take away our First amendment freedoms and tell you what to say and when to say it, there's nothing they can't take away." 

Judge Spencer said Phillips did not demonstrate that his free speech rights had been violated and he said there's no evidence that forcing him to make a cake for a same-sex ceremony would hurt his business.

"On the contrary, to the extent that the law prohibits Respondents' (Phillips) from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, compliance with the law would likely increase their business by not alienating the gay community," he wrote.

But who is this judge to make decisions on what is and isn't good for anyone's business? And who is anyone in a position of public power to tell us we must sell goods & services that violate our conscience? 

While pro-homosexual defenders like to compare this case to the kind of discrimination that black Americans have experienced, they're overlooking one key thing: Nowhere in the Bible does it tell us that there is something wrong with being black, and therefore, to discriminate against a human being for the color of their skin is wrong. But in many places throughout the Bible, we're taught that homosexuality is an abomination.  

Yet the government is forcing us to abandon those beliefs by forcing us to take even a slight part in it -- and that is a serious problem that will only get worse if left unchecked. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see where this trend is heading, including the attempt to force Catholic priests to perform same-sex "marriages". 

In the meantime, where are the lawsuits against Muslim taxi drivers who refuse to pick up passengers who are carrying unopened bottles of alcohol (e.g. a bottle of wine) or who are accompanied by seeing-eye dogs. Muslims refuse to do these things based on their religious beliefs. Where is the outcry against them?

The writing on the wall is clear as to which religion is most targeted for real discrimination here. But imagine a country where a sexual lifestyle carries more weight than a Bible-based belief. Does that look like an America we would want to live in? Think about it.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Why do some want to forfeit rights in the false name of abortion as "healthcare"?

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed yesterday to hear the challenge by the Christian-owned Hobby Lobby stores against the HHS birth control mandate, which requires all employers to provide health insurance that covers contraception, abortifacient drugs and sterilizations. 

Hobby Lobby's employee health insurance currently does offer 16 of the 20 FDA-approved contraceptions required by Obamacare. They simply object to the remaining ones that cause abortions, because abortion violates their deeply held religious beliefs.

Not surprisingly, the hysterical feminists and their male counterpart supporters are in a self-righteous, Sandra Fluke-like frenzy over Hobby Lobby's audacious "attempt to impose its religious beliefs" on women by "denying them access" to birth control - which they wrongly refer to as "women's healthcare."

First of all, Hobby Lobby - specifically its founder, David Green, is not forcing any religious beliefs on anyone. If Hobby Lobby were to say any employee working for them was not allowed to use contraception as a condition of employment, the argument may have a bit more merit. But even then, not really, for the simple fact that nobody is forced to work at Hobby Lobby.

Second, preventing or terminating a pregnancy is not healthcare. Maternity is a valid health issue to the extent of "well-care" pre-natal visits, delivery, and the like. I don't know of any company that objects to coverage of maternity for those to whom it applies (although, under Obamacare, plenty of us object to being forced to carry it, including men, who do not need it). But contraception or abortifacients have more to do with the woman's decision on whether to pursue or terminate pregnancy. That is simply not healthcare (not to mention the fact that there are actually many health dangers that come with contraception use and abortion).

Other Hobby Lobby critics argue that a corporation is not a person, and therefore has no constitutional rights. I marvel at these people's grasp of reality as I try to imagine a company coming into existence and functioning without individual people to make it all happen - people who, in this case, are individuals with guaranteed rights as American citizens.

But reason and logic are non-existent to the group of frantic people who define women solely by their reproductive systems and literally freak out at the notion that a woman may have to make her reproductive choices on her own -- without the forced complicity of her employer.

It could be almost humorous to reflect on all the times we hear pro-abortion supporters tell the government to keep its hands off women's bodies and its noses out of their bedrooms, while these same people want employers to become directly involved against their will in these supposedly private aspects of women's lives. The problem is, there is nothing funny about what is happening here.

Indeed, it's a gravely serious matter that our government, through the HHS mandate, is throwing out our constitutional right to freedom of religion - including the free expression thereof - and is replacing it with a restricted parameter of how we can live our religious beliefs. Should the government get its way, we will be free to go to church (for now) and read the Bible in the privacy of our own homes (for now), but will need to check all our beliefs at the door upon entering the public square.

To all those who think an individual should be forced to choose between the law and his faith in the false name of "women's healthcare", I simply ask, what makes a woman's desire to use contraception or abortifacients -- which she is free to access on her own -- more important than any citizen's constitutional right not to partake in these actions on religious grounds? Why should these women's beliefs be more important than anyone else's? 

There's a dangerous precedent being set here by our government, one that could be used against all of us depending on which ideology is in power. So with that, I leave the Hobby Lobby critics with this age-old caveat: Be careful what you wish for. Stifled freedoms like the one you're demanding to stifle could just as easily be used against you should someone else be in power who doesn't think like you. For your own sake, you should pray that Hobby Lobby wins its case, and then you should thank them for fighting on your behalf to keep the constitutional rights you'd be sorry to lose - whether you realize it now or not.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Obama's healthcare trick is a flagrant violation of law

By delaying the individual health insurance mandate for one year, President Obama made a desperate ploy yesterday to try to save the Democrats in next year’s mid-term elections. What he did not do was anything that will help the millions of people facing the loss of their health plans (myself included). He merely punted the ball to land in the same dangerous field a year from now after the elections are over.

He did say something interesting yesterday, however, when he said, “I didn’t realize how difficult it was to buy healthcare.”  The man is  52 years old. He is just now learning this? More importantly, what makes a man who has obviously never bought health insurance for himself think he can force it on 350 million Americans?

Remember how President George H.W. Bush was excoriated for not being familiar with price scanners at a grocery market? But Obama’s worshipers are just fine with the fact that he has never even partaken in the very part of the economy that he is trying to overtake.

But most disturbing is the fact that Obama's supporters are also apparently fine with the fact that Obama is flagrantly breaking the law, because he is absolutely not authorized to change the healthcare law willy nilly. While his supporters admonish those of us against the law to “deal with it…it’s the law,” they have no problem when the president changes it at whim – which is completely unconstitutional to do. Of course, when facing a complete policy failure, Obama's standard tactic is to ignore the law.

Breitbart.com puts it this way: “Everyone should know from their high-school government classes that Article I of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive power to make federal laws, and Article II of the Constitution gives the American president the executive power to administer and enforce those laws. Article II then includes the language about how the president must faithfully execute those laws.”

Breitbart.com continues, “Obama’s announcement (today) is a flagrant and undeniable violation of his constitutional duty under the Take Care Clause. The provisions of Obamacare causing enormous trouble for insurance plans are mandatory, and only Congress can change those parts of the Affordable Care Act. Every day provides additional proof that Obamacare is a complete train wreck, but it is one regarding which only Congress can change the terms….” not Obama.

What Obama is doing should terrify all of us. Still, his blind followers will likely defend him to the end because he carries the political “D” after his name. But they would be wise to abandon this childish ground for support because this is not about Democrat vs. Republican, right vs. left. This is about the identity of America itself. Are we a nation of law, or have we devolved into an unsettling combination of banana republic/dictatorship? Under Obama, we’re rapidly heading for the latter, toward the completion of Obama's promise to "fundamentally transform America." 

Will Obama's sycophants ever wake up to realize this? I won’t hold my breath. Besides, I’m pretty sure my government-approved healthcare plan wouldn’t cover the consequences of doing so.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Help support Senate bill to protect pain-capable unborn children

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has introduced the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (S. 1670) in the U.S. Senate. This bill would protect unborn children from abortion, nationwide, beginning at 20 weeks’ fetal age, based on scientific evidence that by this stage of development (if not earlier), the baby will experience excruciating pain when subjected to typical late abortion procedures. This is the most important single pro-life bill to be proposed in Congress since the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was enacted ten years ago. 

This new bill (S. 1670) is almost identical to (H.R. 1797, a bill that has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives.  Now, it’s time to demand that the U.S. Senate vote on this landmark legislation. 

Thirty-six (36) senators have already joined Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as co-sponsors of the new legislation.  Please add your voice. Click here to find tools that make it easy for you to send e-mail messages to your two U.S. senators in just a couple of minutes.  You will be shown a suggested message, which you can modify or replace as you see fit. 

If your senators have already cosponsored S. 1670, thank them.  If they have not done so, urge them to sign on as cosponsors immediately.  In either case, please express your strong support for S. 1670 -- and ask them to urge Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) to allow an early Senate vote on S. 1670.

To view an up-to-date list of all of the co-sponsors of S. 1670, arranged by state, click here.

To see a video of National Right to Life Senior Legislative Counsel Susan T. Muskett go toe-to-toe with two critics of the bill on MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews" (November 8), click here.

The forces that are opposed to legal protections for unborn children have financial resources that are far greater than pro-life advocates.  Already, the radical pro-abortion group "NARAL Pro-Choice America" is running a TV ad against S. 1670.  Please take a moment to add your support for this bill.

Source: National Right to Life

Where's the left's outrage on recent murders of two young black people in Michigan?

Earlier this week we learned of the tragic death of Tiane Brown, a young mother of three in the process of getting her law degree at Wayne State University before she was brutally murdered by a gunshot to the head.

On the morning of Oct. 18, 20 year-old Eastern Michigan student and football player, Demarius Reed, was gunned down in front of Ypsilanti’s University Green Apartments. Police say robbery is a possible motive in the incident and the investigation remains open.

Both these young people had very promising futures and reputations for being good, positive role models. My prayers and heart go out to their families and all who are grieving for them.

But what I can't help notice is the lack of 24/7 press coverage either of these murders is getting. It makes you wonder where the media's priorities are and what constitutes a prominent story. 

When Trayvon Martin was killed in a scuffle with neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman, it was all we heard about for months. The reason for that, of course, is because Zimmerman, who ended up firing the fatal shot on Martin, wasn't black. In their desperate attempt to sensationalize the case, media talking heads were forced to label Zimmerman a "white Hispanic", because "regular" Hispanics are apparently too much a minority themselves to ever be guilty of the race-driven crimes against black people that the media want us to believe are commonplace.

Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and all the other race-baiters were on the scene, fanning the flames of the racism accusations. President Obama himself wasted no time in weighing in on the case, emotionally telling the American people how closely he could relate to the systemic racism that leads to things like the Trayvon death. He even likened Trayvon to his own son - if he had one. 

But when it comes to Brown and Reed, I ask, where are the celebrities wearing hoodies? Where is CBS, ABC and NBC with their righteous denouncing of violence? Couldn't they generate even half the emotion for Brown and Reed that they did for the less than angelic Trayvon Martin?

Other stories in the news have also caught Obama's attention. When Texas state Senator Wendy Davis launched a lengthy filibuster recently to protest safety regulations and restrictions on abortion clinics, Obama took time out of his trip to Africa to contact her with showers of praise.

When Sandra Fluke announced to the country that she believed we the citizens should pay for her contraception so she could have sex as she pleases without "consequence", Obama heralded her a hero and the Democrats even made her their keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention last year.

But when hard working, young black people are gunned down in the prime of their very promising lives, Obama doesn't see it worthy to even offer a phone call of consolation to their devastated families. Of course, Obama cannot possibly contact the family of every murder victim in America, but perhaps if these recent victims' killers were white, he would. And the Jessie's and Al's of the world would follow suit, decrying racism on every news outlet that would host them.

Until then, though, they will of course remain silent, which only highlights how the contrast between what the leftists consider attention-worthy, and what barely evokes a perfunctory shrug, is very telling of where their real priorities lie.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.