It’s Monday, April 6th, 2015…but before we begin, courtesy of Jim Gleaves, one job opportunity we hope and pray is filled as quickly and effectively as possible:
WANTED: German Co-pilot for Air Force One.
Auf wiedersehen, baby!
Now, here’s The Gouge!
First up, courtesy of Gabriel Malor writing at The Federalist,…
“…Until now, the most controversial RFRA case was last year’s Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, which was about whether the federal government has a compelling interest in forcing religious business owners to pay for abortifacents. (It doesn’t.)
This big gay freak-out is purely notional. No RFRA has ever been used successfully to defend anti-gay discrimination, not in twenty years of RFRAs nationwide.
…The fear is that it could be used to deny service to gay people in places of public accommodation like businesses and restaurants. But, as discussed above, no RFRA has ever been used that way before.Also, Indiana does not have a public accommodation law that protects against anti-gay discrimination, meaning there’s no state law in Indiana preventing anti-gay discrimination in businesses even before the state RFRA was enacted. Notably, despite the lack of such a law, nobody can point to any Indiana businesses that were discriminating against gays.
That’s what makes this an informed attribute.Gay marriage is on many people’s minds lately, for obvious reasons.In truth, though, Indiana is merely catching-up to states that have had RFRAs for decades—like Illinois, for example, which got its RFRA with the help of a young state senator named Barack Obama.Unfortunately, Indiana is now caught in the cultural cross-fire…”
One of the very few times this calculating Communist didn’t vote “present’!
In a related item, brought to us by NRO, Andrew McCarthy details why…
“…If this were actually about pizza, a demand for specific performance would be frivolous. We have a controversy in Indiana, and now nationally, only because liberal fascists want a controversy. They want what a free society should never grant: License to use the law not as a protective shield but an offensive sword for extorting compliance with their own intolerant agenda — something that, as Tammy Bruce explains with moving eloquence, ought to be especially offensive to gay people who’ve felt the sting of condemnation over being different…”
We love Tammy Bruce; she’s a solid, common-sense Conservative whose sexual orientation doesn’t render her incapable of reason. And that unerring reason has never been better displayed than by her analysis of The Left’s attempted lynching of Indiana:
Your average American, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, national origin or sexual orientation, is generally ignorant of the basis of their beliefs. And when it comes to the Indiana inanity, even otherwise-intelligent Conservatives either (a) don’t understand the issue; (b) misrepresent it; or, (c) both (a) and (b). Take cartoonist Ken Catalino for instance:
Nothing could be more removed from reality; yet Catalino is all-too willing to promote this Progressive prevarication. Why? Because he doesn’t understand the facts of the issue well enough to give it proper presentation; like any good Liberal, he’s operating on pure emotion and feelings!
We listened, and cringed, when a Christian Indiana florist, in response to a purposefully-provocative Progressive reporter’s question as to whether, having refused to provide floral arrangements to a gay wedding, she would serve an adulterer or fornicator in her store, responded, “Yes”.
As she’d already stated she would serve gay customers in her shop, the question wasn’t whether she would serve adulterers or fornicators, but if she would provide floral arrangements for a ceremony celebrating their sin!!! To which, had she accurately assessed the question, her answer would have been an emphatic “NO!!!”.
Refusing to provide service to a walk-in homosexual customer is far different than countenancing the correctness of gay marriage. As we’ve noted numerous times before, this isn’t about gay rights; rather it’s all about thought-control and mandated immorality.
Next up, writing at Townhall.com, Kurt Schlichter respectfully suggests…
Kurt Schilchter in the ruins of a village in Kosovo
“…Today in America, we have a liberal president refuses to recognize the majority sent to Congress as a reaction to his progressive failures, and who uses extra-Constitutional means like executive orders to stifle the voice of his opponents. We have a liberal establishment on a secular jihad against people who dare place their conscience ahead of progressive dogma. And we have two different sets of laws, one for the little people and one for liberals like Lois Lerner, Al Sharpton and Hillary Clinton, who can blatantly commit federal crimes and walk away scot free and smirking.
Today in America, a despised minority that is really no minority is the target of an establishment that considers this minority unworthy of respect, unworthy of rights, and unworthy of having a say in the direction of this country. It’s an establishment that has one law for itself, and another for its enemies. It’s an establishment that inflicts an ever-increasing series of petty humiliations on its opponents and considers this all hilarious.
That’s a recipe for disaster. You cannot expect to change the status quo for yourself and then expect those you victimize not to play by the new rules you have created. You cannot expect to be able to discard the rule of law in favor of the rule of force and have those you target not respond in kind.
…I’m not advocating violence – I am warning liberals that they are setting the conditions for violence.
And that better worry them, for the coastal elites are uniquely unsuited to a world where force rules instead of law. The Serbs were, at least, a warrior people. The soft boys and girls who brought us helicopter parenting, “trigger warnings” and coffee cups with diversity slogans are not.
I know the endgame of discarding the rule of law for short-term advantage because I stood in its ruins.Liberals think this free society just sort of happened, that they can poke and tear at its fabric and things will just go on as before. But they won’t. So at the end of the day, if you want a society governed by the rule of force, you better pray that you’re on the side with the guns and those who know how to use them.“
As ’tis often said, be careful what you wish for.Liberals have sown the wind; they haven’t begun to imagine the whirlwind they might well reap as a result.
Moving on to Tales From the Darkside, brought to us today by Joe Dunn, here’s a story you’ll never catch from the MSM:
The silence of B. Hussein and Eric the Red on this little altercation is deafening; and leaves us wondering had Barry sons, whether they would have looked like the Philly perps, either today…
…or at the time of their earlier arrest:
You know…like the two Trayvons:
Either way, we won’t hold our breath waiting for an answer; and there’s a dead White citizen of Philadelphia about which no one in Washington, D.C. evidently cares.
Since we’re on the subject of the deliberate misrepresentation of the relative rate of racism in America, courtesy of Breitbart.com, we learn that…
“Army spokeswoman Capt. Lindsay Roman said that Army officials are investigating the Equal Opportunity (EO) briefing, USA Today reports. The slide, which contains bullet points about “white privilege,” is titled “The Luxury of Obliviousness.”
…Capt. Roman claimed that the presentation, which took place on Thursday, was not authorized and is not part of the standard Army briefings that are typically shown to soldiers.“The unit (Equal Opportunity) instructor deviated from the authorized topic and content which was provided,” said the Army spokeswoman. “To prevent further instances, all unit instructors will receive additional training on the importance of following Army EO training requirements.”
…According to Army spokesman Wayne Hall, the slide appears to reflect the work of Allan Johnson, a sociologist and author.“
Which begs the question why the U.S. Army ever authorized the creation of this politically-correct drivelin the first place?!? Seriously…White soldiers are WHAT; privileged to DIE FOR THEIR COUNTRY?!? This is so wrong on so many levels as to defy description!!!
So to you, Allan G. Johnson, self-described…
….”nonfiction author, novelist, sociologist, public speaker, and workshop presenter who has devoted most of his working life to understanding the human condition, especially in relation to issues of social justice rooted in gender, race, and social class”…
And don’t let the door hit you in your Progressive posterior on your way out! We could put one behind your ear and lose as little sleep had you been Barry.
Bill Whittle states what we’ve believed to be obvious ever since the wholly-fabricated Tailhook “scandal”:
What continues to surprise us is NOT ONE SINGLE SENIOR OFFICER HAS YET TO RESIGN IN PROTEST!!!
And if, like we, you fear for America’s future, this letter-to-the-editor from one Joseph DiZoglio, a soon-to-graduate of an inexplicably-esteemed Ivy League university clearly demonstrates, your fears are well-grounded:
The current rally that generational pundits make against me and my peers in college today is that we have forsaken freedom of speech and multiple view points for “comfort.” What does this word “comfort” even mean? I’m afraid that it is a product of jargon that is too easily mistranslated by these opinion columnists hoping to pass a deadline. If they delved with any honest intent into the vast discourse of social justice, they would see how far from the mark they really are.
To begin, when students claim a lecture or event is “uncomfortable,” it’s not because the chair cushion is sagging. Nor is it because we simply don’t like the ideas being touted before us. It is because the speakers promoting these ideas do not display an effort to be inclusive in their thoughts. . . .
When I say your argument makes me uncomfortable, it is because I am greatly concerned that you have not done the requisite thought and research into generating an inclusive thesis that considers as many nuances as necessary to deliver a sound debate.
If you do not believe that skin color, age, religious identity, sexuality, class or (dis)ability have an effect in cultural, political or economic problems that we debate at universities, then it is you who is trying to remain comfortable despite such frightening realities.In this sense, being uncomfortable is the strongest form of rhetoric that our millennial generation wields in the struggle against all forms of oppression.
Yeah…at least forgetting the Constitution…
And in the Environmental Moment, the WSJ explains the facts and history behind…
“…While droughts occur intermittently across the globe, other societies have learned better how to cope with water shortages. For instance, Israel (60% desert) has built massive desalination plants powered by cheap natural gas that helped the country weather the driest winter on record in 2014 and a seven-year drought between 2004 and 2010.
Then there’s California, which has suffered four droughts in the last five decades with each seemingly more severe in its impact. Yet this is due more to resource misallocation than harsher conditions.
During normal years, the state should replenish reservoirs. However, environmental regulations require that about 4.4 million acre-feet of water—enough to sustain 4.4 million families and irrigate one million acres of farmland—be diverted to ecological purposes. Even in dry years, hundreds of thousands of acre feet of runoff are flushed into San Francisco Bay to protect fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
During the last two winters amid the drought, regulators let more than 2.6 million acre-feet out into the bay. The reason: California lacked storage capacity north of the delta, and environmental rules restrict water pumping to reservoirs south.After heavy rains doused northern California this February, the State Water Resources Control Board dissipated tens of thousands of more acre-feet. Every smelt matters…”
This is utter insanity!!! Which is about par for the Progressive course.
On the Lighter Side…
Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with the This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things segment, courtesy of our middle son Mike, the New York Post and a mob of dusky daiquiri drinkers:
“A brawl involving dozens of people broke out inside the Resorts World casino at Aqueduct Race Track on Friday night, turning the opening night of a Fat Tuesday daiquiri bar into a fight night worthy of Las Vegas.
The violence was sparked by people angry about the long wait for daiquiris, law-enforcement sources said…”
As one upset yet insightful patron so eloquently observed:
“People always ask why we never get anything. Next time ask yourselves, “Why every time we get something, we destroy it.”
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.