Friday, April 27, 2012

Fifty Ways Obama Has Hurt the Economy

The American Spectator has a list of fifty ways the Obama administration has hurt our economy and job creation.  I'm sure there are those on the Left who could try to justify every one of these actions.  But the fact remains that because of these actions, our economy and unemployment are a disaster. 

  1. Increased the deficit more than $4 trillion, causing the first-ever downgrade in the U.S. credit rating and for the first time raising serious questions about U.S. financial stability.
  2. Issued 106 new major rules that cost U.S. businesses $11 billion in implementation and more than $46 billion each year.
  3. Blocked Boeing's new South Carolina factory from opening to assuage his union supporters.
  4. Raided a Gibson Guitar factory for violating an arcane India law even though India does not believe the law has been broken.
  5. Issued an "ambush" election rule allowing quick unionization and limiting an employer's ability to present reasons for non-unionization.
  6. Restricted how companies hire unpaid interns, cutting the link between students and employers.
  7. Blocked the construction of the Keystone Pipeline that would have given jobs to thousands of American workers, further reducing the domestic oil supply and forcing our ally Canada to turn to China as a more willing partner.
  8. Cut authorization of permits restricting drilling in Gulf andslowed permitting of new oil drilling so our future oil supply will be restricted and gas prices will be higher.
  9. Mandated third party certification for all manufacturers participating in the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program, which has raised costs for manufacturers and created a disincentive for participation in the program.
  10. Funded Solyndra and other unworthy companies, wasting taxpayer money but also discouraging other privately funded companies from entering the market.
The rest of the list is on the American Spectator website.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Wallace Collins - Embarrassment to OK Democrats

Wallace Collins, chairman of the Oklahoma Democratic Party, has refused to back down from comments he made last week in which he said if Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh were alive today he would be in the Tea Party.

“I certainly stand by my remarks, because it's widely known that McVeigh was anti-government. I think that he was a right-winger, and I think the current tea party people, while I'm not saying that they're proposing violence, they're anti-government,” Collins said Tuesday. “They dislike the government. I don't know if you'd call them a government hater, but I certainly see them in a similar vein. Maybe they're an offshoot or offspring or next generation.”

Read more:

Matt Pinnell, chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party, said Collins' comments crossed the line of decency.

“Chairman Collins has stooped to a new low with his latest remarks,” Pinnell said in a statement. “This is as offensive and despicable as they come. To imply that a deranged madman who killed 168 people including 19 children is someone like me, a ‘right-winger,' is way over the line. He should immediately apologize for making that statement.”

Collins said he has no plans to apologize and stands by his statement.

Collins has a history of shooting off his mouth and embarrassing Oklahoma Democrats. 

After the poor showing that President Obama had in the Oklahoma Presidential Primary, Collins' comment on the vote was, "Racism is alive and well in Oklahoma."  An odd and provocative thing for the Chairman to say about his own party since Oklahoma does not have an open primary and only Democrats were allowed to vote in their primary.

If this is the person Oklahoma Democrats want running their party, power to them, but they shouldn't be surprised the next time Collins opens his mouth and makes a laughingstock out of himself and the Oklahoma Democratic Party.

If I Wanted America To Fail

This video has gone viral in the last few days. 

Mormonism A Problem for Romney? JFK Says No

It's becoming more apparent that Mitt Romney's Mormonism is going to be a campaign issue.  The Democrats will quietly see to it that their friends in the media continually remind America that Romney is a Mormon.  They know there are votes to be had.  According to a Gallup poll last summer, 18 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats would oppose a Mormon candidate. 

The right-wing Christian voting bloc has long been in the Republican camp and with an incumbent who a lot of people believe is secretly a Muslim, the Democrats know they need to convince the Evangelicals that voting for a Mormon would be a mistake.

Richard Land, a Southern Baptist Convention leader, has said he believes the media will "run detailed specials, now that we have the first Mormon nominee for president: 'What does the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believe?' And they're going to go into all the beliefs of Mormonism, hoping to scare the 40 percent of independents who make up the decisive vote in the electorate to not vote for someone who believes such things."

Already, some on the right have been publicly opposing Romney because he is a Mormon.

Students at Liberty University have spoken out against the school's decision to have Romney deliver the 2012 commencement address, according to CNN.  Liberty is an Evangelical Christian school that teaches Mormonism is not part of the Christian faith.

Rick Santorum wrote an op-ed in 2007 in which he referred to Mormonism as a "dangerous cult."

Rev. Robert Jeffress, a Rick Perry supporter who pastors the biggest Baptist congregation in Texas, also referred to Mormonism as a "cult."

And the media is already starting to go after Romney for being Mormon. 

ABC News has questioned why Romney won't discuss his faith more publicly. 

Both New York Times columnist Charles Blow and MSNBC political contributor Joan Walsh apologized after tweeting "inappropriate" remarks toward Romney regarding the Mormon faith and some of its most sacred practices.

The Huffington Post and MSNBC have reminded the public that the Mormon church did not allow black men to be ordained as priests until 1978.

Slate has published an article with the subtitle, "Mitt Romney and the Weird and Sinister Beliefs of Mormonism."

And just last week, MSNBC's Martin Bashir read a passage from the Book of Mormon on air which says, "Woe unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell."  He went on to say that, "Given what the Book of Mormon is clearly saying, Mr. Romney has but two choices.  He can either keep lying and potentially win the White House, but bring eternal damnation upon himself or he can start telling the truth.  The question for him, I guess, is which is more important."

The Democrats would have the Evangelicals believe their candidates have been more closely aligned with Christianity.  Jimmy Carter, the born again Christian who famously admitted lusting after women while destroying the country's economy and crippling the energy industry.  Bill Clinton, former Southern Baptist who fornicated on the floor of the Oval Office, desecrating the Great Seal of the United States.  Barack Obama, alleged Christian who sat in church for twenty years listening to Jeremiah Wright asking God to damn America, then denied hearing his vitriolic sermons.

But does all this really matter?  Should Romney's religion be a real issue or is the Left just attempting to make it one to scare people into not voting for the Mormon?

The answer is found in the history of the Democratic Party itself, from one of their most iconic Presidents, John F. Kennedy.

Most people are probably unaware of the anti-Catholic bigotry that used to fester in our country.  A deep, anti-Catholic sentiment was inherited from Great Britain and some colonies had laws restricting or banning Catholicism.  After the American Revolution, some states devised loyalty oaths designed to exclude Catholics from holding office.  It wasn't until the early twentieth century that growing numbers began to give Catholics political power.  Al Smith's Catholicism was a divisive political issue in his 1928 presidential campaign and, just 32 years later, it would again be an issue in the presidential campaign of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

At the time of JFK's campaign, many Protestants questioned whether his faith would allow him to make decisions independent of the Church or whether he would take orders from Catholic leadership, even the Pope himself.  The issue nearly cost him the election.

Kennedy was acutely aware of the Protestant skepticism and sought to allay their fears in a speech he gave to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960.

He said, "...we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida; the humiliating treatment of our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power; the hungry children I saw in West Virginia; the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills; the families forced to give up their farms; an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space."

"These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues — for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers."

"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."

"Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood."

"But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me."

"But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election."

Today's Democrats would dismiss the views of JFK.  He believed in an America where religious intolerance would end.  But, when that intolerance can be used for political gain, the Obama campaign and their allies in the media will stir the pot of intolerance as much as they can, hoping to motivate just enough of the voters to return him to the Oval Office for a second term.

They will obfuscate the real issues with the religion issue.  As in JFK's day, there are far more important issues than whether or not Mitt Romney wears 'magic underwear'.  The economy.  Unemployment.  Energy.  Immigration.  Health care.  Obama has failed on all these issues and doesn't want us to remember that.

The same fears that almost kept JFK from being elected will be used to attempt to keep Mitt Romney from being elected.  The Democrats have no shame.  They will happily flush the hopes of JFK down the toilet of history if it will give Obama a second term.  And shame on the rest of us if we let them.

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Earth Day - Vladimir Lenin's Birthday

April 22 is Earth Day. Very appropriately, and not by any means coincidentally, Earth Day is celebrated on the birthday of the socialist tyrant Vladimir Lenin.

It’s appropriate that the two are celebrated on the same day, because there is no relevant difference between the socialist and environmentalist agendas in this country. Saving the environment is simply a euphemism for eviscerating the rights of property owners and creating a dictatorship.

Read more at David Ziemer's column from 2010:

Sorry this post is so short but I have old refrigerator compressors to shoot and tires to burn.

Reagan vs. Obama - Social Economics 101

This video should be shown in every classroom. 

Friday, April 20, 2012

Marijuana Legalization: Don't Be Stupid

Today, April 20, is what marijuana users call 420 day and it is embraced by pot smokers as "weed day" each year.  Classy.  The origin of the name supposedly goes back to the 1970s when a police code for marijuana use was 420.

For years, there's been a call to legalize marijuana use and it's been mentioned in the presidential campaign this year.  Ron Paul has advocated decriminalizing it at the federal level.  But, there's plenty of reasons to keep it illegal.

The Prevention Resources & Information on Drug Education company has a informative list of reasons to not legalize marijuana.

1.  Marijuana legalization would bring increased marijuana use, especially by children.
 - Legalization of any illicit drug increases its availability. Increased availability results in increased use, lower risk of transport, and lower costs of that drug. Children are especially vulnerable to low prices and increased availability of any drug. Many children now think marijuana cannot hurt them because it is “medicine” and because so many of their pop idols use it and promote its use in movies and music.

2. Use and distribution of marijuana is clearly against federal law under the Controlled Substances Act.
- The use and distribution of marijuana is still illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970. Recently, several states’ Attorneys General have warned that people who assist in the distribution of marijuana, including drug dealers, dispensaries, landlords, and even doctors or state employees who help facilitate “recommendations” for marijuana can be vigorously prosecuted as federal laws are enforced. This is true, even if such activities are permitted under state law.

3. Marijuana is a harmful, addictive and dangerous drug.
- Marijuana harms the body and the mind. It contains more cancer-causing ingredients than tobacco, and is especially harmful to the respiratory system. Marijuana makes the heart beat faster, and research has found that marijuana users’ risk for a heart attack is four times higher within the first hour after smoking marijuana. The drug compromises the immune system and lowers the level of white blood cells that fight infection. Marijuana can cause acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks, flashbacks, paranoia, and depression. It can trigger attacks of schizophrenia and bi-polar psychosis.

4. Marijuana is NOT medicine.
- Marijuana is a dangerous, addictive drug that can compromise the human immune system and make sick people sicker. We Americans take our medications many ways, but we don’t smoke them. In states that have allowed marijuana to be declared medicine, many criminal, social, political, and economic problems have been created.

5. Marijuana use has, indeed, caused death.
- The marijuana lobby is not honest when it tells us no one has ever died from marijuana use. The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) reports consistently list deaths by marijuana overdose in their lists of the top American cities’ drug statistics.

6. Marijuana-related traffic crashes, injuries, and deaths would increase, as they have in "medical" marijuana states.
- One 2008 study found that 1,240 persons were killed in California (the first state to legalize marijuana under the guise of “medicine”) in marijuana-related traffic crashes in the 5 years since marijuana was legalized in that state. In the five years before marijuana was legalized, 631 people were killed in marijuana-related crashes in California – an increase of almost 100%! Intoxicating drugs cause impaired drivers. Also, there is no known test to determine levels of intoxication from marijuana, thus making enforcement of our laws extremely difficult for law enforcement personnel.

7. Crime would increase as it has in "medical" marijuana states.
- Increased crime, including robbery and murder, surround the increased distribution of “medical” marijuana. Pot dispensaries are special magnets for crime. Neighbors often complain of open marijuana sales, vandalism, open pot smoking, public urination and sex acts near marijuana dispensaries. Drugs and money attract crime.

8. Our prisons are not filled with "low level" marijuana users.
- The marijuana users and promoters want us to believe that our jails are filled with prisoners whose only crime has been to smoke marijuana. The truth is, studies have found that less than 1% of prisoners are jailed for simple possession of marijuana. Even then, many of them have pleaded down from other charges, including drug trafficking.

9. Hemp will not save our environment.
- Marijuana hemp is not a “cousin” to illicit marijuana; it is the exact same plant. The only way to tell the difference is to conduct scientific testing on each plant. It is very easy to conceal high-grade, smokeable marijuana in low-THC hemp fields where hemp is legal. No law enforcement agency can afford to test every plant in a field. Hemp can only be profitable if there is abundant cheap labor or where governments subsidize its production. Canada legalized hemp in 1998, and many hemp farmers have gone bankrupt because the market for hemp is so small.

10. Legalizing and then taxing and regulating marijuana would not offset the cost to society associated with increased use.
- Even if marijuana were legalized, taxed and regulated, there would always be an illegal black market to undercut the cost of the drug to the user. With legalization would come increased use, more accidents, more healthcare costs incurred, and a decrease in workplace productivity. Legal alcohol serves as a good example: The $8 billion in tax revenue generated by this widely-used drug does little to offset the nearly $200 billion in social costs attributed to its use in America.

White House Takes Revenge On Oklahoma

The White House denied Gov. Mary Fallin’s request for assistance to aid individuals and businesses in Woodward County that were hard hit by last weekend’s deadly tornado.
Fallin said she is disappointed in the decision but that the state is continuing to work to bring assistance to those impacted by the storm.  She announced late Friday that the state will now request a disaster declaration for Woodward County through the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Read more:

This is what happens to your state when Obama loses fourteen of your counties in his own Democratic primary.

Gay Marriage - Coming To A Church Near You. Or Else.

Do your religious beliefs oppose gay marriage?  Those beliefs may soon be in conflict with criminal law. 

Does your church oppose gay marriage?  Your church may soon be forced under law to provide gay marriages or face civil and criminal penalties.

In the United Kingdom, British Prime Minster David Cameron and the coalition government are pushing strongly to grant gay couples the option of entering into civil marriages.  British clergy are strongly protesting.

Neil Addison, the director of the Thomas More Legal Centre, said Cameron's assurances to the Church that they would not be compelled to perform religious marriages for gay couples are worthless.  He said two judgements from the European Court of Human Rights and a Court of Appeal ruling show that the government would be acting illegally if it made civil marriages legal without permitting them on religious premises as well.

Addison said this means if the government presses ahead with plans to redefine marriage to include gay couples that the Church could face prosecution under equality legislation for acting according with its teachings.

“Certainly a good legal case can be made that any place or person who is registered to perform marriage must be willing to perform same-sex marriage on the same basis as they conduct heterosexual marriage since, in law, there will be no difference between the two,” Addison said.

But what does this mean for churches in the United States?  Methods used to eventually compel churches to provide gay marriages are on track to succeed in the United Kingdom and proponents of gay marriage in the United States are taking notice. 

There are already states recognizing same sex marriages.  The federal government does not.  The Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 is a federal law that defines marriage as one man and one woman.  But, there are already numerous challenges to this law and the Obama administration has taken steps to assist in it's defeat.

On February 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder released a memo regarding two lawsuits that challenge the Defense of Marriage Act.  He wrote: "After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny.  The President has also concluded that Section3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard as is therefore unconstitutional.  Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases."

All across the country, gay couples are filing discrimination complaints against businesses refusing to provide services which the business owners believe would support gay marriage and, therefore, would be in conflict with their personal beliefs.

A few examples:

In Dallas, a gay couple filed a complaint against the Dallas Morning News for refusing to publish an announcement of their gay wedding.

In New Mexico, a photographer was fined $7,000 for refusing to take pictures of a lesbian ceremony.

In Illinois, a gay couple filed a complaint against two bed and breakfast inns who refused to provide a venue for their civil union ceremony.

In Iowa, a cake maker may be facing legal action for refusing to provide a wedding cake for two lesbians.

The State of Washington appears to be taking the lead in the assault on churches.  A gay marriage equality bill was passed by the legislature and signed by Governor Gregoire which poses a serious threat to religions freedom.  The bill's introduction says it would not force clergy or church to marry gays, but it adds a section dealing with discrimination to the state marriage law. The law previously had no discrimination provision.  A church or minister who took part in newly defined discrimination against gays would face lawsuits and legal penalties.

Section 7 of the bill reads:  "Consistent with the law against discrimination [RCW 49.60], no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization offers admission, occupancy, or use of these accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale."

This mean a church that allows the public or non-members to use the sanctuary for a wedding could NOT deny a gay couple the same use.  Any church that allows it's facility to be used for a fee by another Christian organization would not be able to deny use of the facility for a gay wedding. 

Proponents of the law say it doesn't force clergy and churches to perform gay weddings, but fail to mention the 'Unless' section.  The discrimination provision wasn't added to the law for no reason.  You don't create a discrimination clause without an intent to use it.

There has already been an attempt to repeal this law but it appears to be failing.  Over 120,000 signatures are needed by June 6 to place a referendum on the November ballot, but so far only about 6,000 have been collected.

Where gays succeed in one state, others will follow.  It may take years, but I believe every state will eventually have such laws, or the federal government will enact such a law and force gay marriage on every state under some ridiculous link to the Commerce Clause.

The gay assault on churches is just getting started.  It will not end until religious freedom is extinguished in the name of 'equality' for gays.  Churches who decline to perform gay weddings will face civil rights lawsuits and severe penalties that could bankrupt the church.  And I have no doubt that eliminating churches who oppose their 'equality' would be a goal for gays.  With new discrimination laws being used against them, churches who stick to their beliefs may find it difficult to survive. 

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Today Is Tax Freedom Day In Oklahoma

If you live in Oklahoma, congratulations, you've made it to Tax Freedom Day.  Every penny you've earned so far this year will go toward federal, state and local taxes.  The national Tax Freedom Day is April 17.

The Tax Foundation in Washington, DC has more analysis on their website, including some interesting historical facts about Tax Freedom Day.

This is the map from the Tax Foundation showing the Tax Freedom Day for all states.  Tennessee is the only state with a Tax Freedom Day in March.  New  Jersey, New York and Connecticut round out the bottom with Tax Freedom Days in May.

Friday, April 6, 2012

Jail For A Tweet: Coming to America?

A few weeks ago a 21 year old British man was sentenced to 56 days in jail after being found guilty of inciting racial hatred.  His crime?  A tweet.

After a British soccer player collapsed on the field due to a heart attack, Liam Stacey sent a tweet that said, "LOL. F*** Muamba he's dead!!! #haha."

He was arrested by police the following day.  The judge who sentenced Stacey called his comment "vile and abhorrent."

Meanwhile, back here in the States, the legislature in Arizona has passed House Bill 2549, which would include electronic or digital devices in an existing state law that makes it illegal to threaten or harass someone using a telephone.  Using a cell phone, tablet or computer to communicate obscene, lewd or profane language would be a violation of the law if that communication is done with the intent to annoy, offend or terrify. 

Annoy?  Offend?  Really?

Using that criteria, most of the users on Twitter should be arrested, starting with Spike Lee.

Arizona legislatures say the bill is intended to stop cyber bullying.  They may have good intentions but it appears, according to David Horowitz of Media Coalition, that the language in the bill is too broad and it risks criminalizing the all too common practice of acting like a jerk online.

Since the bill isn't limited to one-on-one communication, all open communication on the Internet could be considered a crime if someone is offended by what you say.

As of April 3, the bill passed the Legislature and was awaiting a decision by Gov. Jan Brewer.

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Democrats Court Student Loan Debtors

The federal student loan program, started in 1965, allows students to borrow now for college and pay back later when they have a job.  Student loan debt has surpassed credit card and auto loan debt for the first time, surging to over $1 trillion.

From an AP story

"With a still-wobbly jobs market, these loans are increasingly hard to pay off. Unable to find work, many students have returned to school, further driving up their indebtedness.

Average student loan debt recently topped $25,000, up 25 percent in 10 years. And the mushrooming debt has direct implications for taxpayers, since 8 in 10 of these loans are government-issued or guaranteed."

The Democrats have come up with a solution to the problem - Forgive the debt.

'Forgive' the debt.  A euphemistic way of saying, "Never mind; you don't have to pay back the money you borrowed. And, oh, by the way, you're going to vote for us, right?"

Rep. Hansen Clarke (D-MI) has introduced HR4170, the Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012.  To be fair, the Act does not outright wipe out student loan debt.  But, if certain conditions are met, a debtor could have up to $42,520 in student loan debt eliminated.

The highlights from the Act:

A) The bill would create a new "10-10" standard for student loan forgiveness.

B) If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven.

C) If you have already been making payments on your students loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years.  The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness.

D) The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%.

E) The bill would allow existing borrowers whose educational loan debt exceeds their income to break free from the crushing interest rates of private loans by converting their private loan debt into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling their new federal loans into the 10/10 program.

F) The bill would reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting. It would also provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. It would reduce the Public Service Loan Forgiveness requirement to 5 years from its current 10 years.

The Democrats claim forgiving student loan debt would jump start the economy and create jobs.  They say it will increase millions of Americans' purchasing power, freeing them to invest, buy homes or start businesses.

What this debt forgiveness would really be is a blatant transfer of wealth disguised as 'stimulus' by the Democrats.  Even people who could not go or chose not to go to college would be forced, via taxes, to subsidize the debt incurred by those who went. 

That's the one thing no one in favor of debt forgiveness will talk about.  The money has been spent and, if it is not paid back, who will be having to take the loss?  The answer - The taxpayers.  But, since 49.5% of the country doesn't pay income taxes, the Democrats see this as an easy scheme to entice students into supporting them at the polls. 

Granted, student loans can take years to pay back and be a financial burden.  But, no one forced them to take out a loan.   And taxpayers shouldn't pay for it.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Courting Disaster

Gay and Lesbian Group Targets Christian Business

Hands On Originals, a T-shirt company in Lexington, KY, is under investigation by the city's Human Rights Commission after the owner declined to print T-shirts for a local gay rights organization.

The Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO) had asked the business to print shirts for the fifth annual Lexington Pride Festival.  Blaine Adamson, managing owner of the T-shirt business, declined to print the shirts when he learned what they were for because it would conflict with his Christian convictions.

He offered to find another company who would honor the same price, but GLSO was not satisfied.
Instead, they filed a complain with the Human Rights Commission, claiming discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The text of their complaint:  "On or about March 8, 2012, members of GLSO were told that our Pride Festival t-shirt printing quote would not be honored due to the fact that the t-shirt company is a Christian organization.  We were told that our t-shirts would not be printed.  We believe that we have been discriminated against in violation of Local Ordinance 201-99, based on sexual orientation."

Hands On Originals has faced a barrage of attacks since the accusations were made public. More than 2,000 people have joined a boycott movement on Facebook.  The Fayette County public school system placed a temporary hold on buying T-shirts from the company. The University of Kentucky is also reviewing its future business with the T-shirt maker.  And Lexington's openly gay mayor, Jim Gray, has lashed out at the T-shirt company, saying "People don't have patience for this sort of attitude today."

Adamson wrote an op-ed in the Lexington Herald-Leader defending his decision and denied that he is guilty of discrimination. He wrote, "I decided to pass on the opportunity because, as a Christian owner, I cannot in good conscience endorse groups or events that run counter to my convictions.  All I ask for people is to respect my right as an owner to not produce a product that is contrary to my principles," he wrote.

If the T-shirt company is found to have discriminated against GLSO, a fine of an unknown amount could be levied.

More details from the Baptist Press here:

While typing all the above I was wondering what the GLSO would think if a gay and lesbian sign company was forced to print signs for the Westboro loonies who protest at military funerals. Would their attitude change if it was a gay and lesbian business that had a discrimination complaint filed on it for refusing to print these signs?

While reading articles about this situation, I was looking at the comments on an article on the Lexington Herald-Leader website.  The article was about a protest of Hands On Originals that took place in Lexington.  Apparently, even gay and lesbian business owners understand that they should have the right to choose with whom they do business.  No business should be forced under the threat of fines for discrimination to produce goods or services that are directly in conflict with their personal beliefs.

Obama: Bring Back Separate But Equal

Okay, maybe President Obama didn't really say that.  Or did he.  Let's take a look.

Yesterday, he was speaking at a joint press conference and had this to say about the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare:

"Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress.

And I would like to remind conservative commentators that for years what we have heard is that the biggest problem is judicial activism and that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.

Well, this is a good example and I’m pretty confident this court will recognize that and not take that step."

A strong majority?  Really?? The final vote in the House was 219-212, with 34 Democrats joining every Republican in voting no.  If that's a "strong majority" I wonder what he would call a close vote.

Let's take a look at a few other Supreme Court decisions and apply Obama's criteria to their decision.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
The court ruled that people of African descent brought into the United States and held as slaves were not protected by the Constitution and were not U.S. citizens. Therefore, Dred Scott, a slave, had no standing before the court to claim that his presence and residence in free territories required his emancipation.

Obama would agree with the court. Don't overturn democratically passed laws. Slaves are not protected by the Constitution. Keep them in chains.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
The court upheld the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal."

Obama would agree with the court.  Don't overturn democratically passed laws.  Keep the blacks separate.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
The court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional.  The decision overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.

Obama would disagree with the court.  Don't overturn democratically passed laws.  Keep the blacks separate.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
The court ruled that the prohibition on interracial marriage was unconstitutional.  Sixteen states that still banned interracial marriage were forced to revise their laws.

Obama would disagree with the court.  Don't overturn democratically passed laws.  Black shouldn't be allowed to marry whites.

And, although it doesn't involve race...

Roe v. Wade (1973)
The court ruled that state laws preventing first trimester abortions were unconstitutional.

Obama would disagree with the court.  Don't overturn democratically passed laws.  Abortion should still be illegal.

There are countless other Supreme Court decisions that could be used to show how ridiculous Obama's statement was.  It was a blatant attempt at intimidating the court.  Ironically, the vote has already been taken by the Justices, but won't be made public until opinions are written.  The fate of Obamacare has already been decided.  We just have to wait to find out what it is.

Obama's swipe at the court didn't go unanswered by Republicans.  GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah) said Obama shouldn't try to put blame on the court for rejecting his "signature domestic achievement."

"It must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don't is 'activist,'" Hatch said.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) fired back at Obama, saying, "It is not unprecedented at all for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional; they do that on a regular basis so it's not unprecedented at all.  What is unprecedented is for the President of the United States trying to intimidate the Supreme Court."

If Obama had his way, the Supreme Court would probably not exist. Unless, of course, they agreed with him.

Sunday, April 1, 2012

April Fools

And all the other months, too.