60 Years of Rosa Parks

On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake’s order to give up her seat in the colored section to a white passenger, after the white section was filled.
Now we have “safe zones” for blacks only. For example: In an ironic development, to say the least, protesters at the University of Missouri (MU) segregated themselves by race Wednesday night, having white students leave a gathering in order to create a “black-only healing space.”

John Wheeler's photo.

Isn’t Liberal “diversity” and “tolerance” a wonderful thing for racial progress. 🙂

The CryBaby Generation at it’s finest, reversing history but it’s a ‘good thing’.

The bad old segregation kept “colored people” in specific spaces. The good new segregation reserves spaces for “people of color”.

DIVERSITY IS SEGREGATION!

INCLUSION IS EXCLUSION!

Orwell would be proud of you.

And if you violate their segregation you’re an insensitive racist. 🙂

Additionally, a “Hurting and Healing” event, described as “a *for POC, by POC* art show,” is scheduled to take place at Pomona College on December 5. “This show’s intent is to create a space that is pro-POC, pro-black, and anti-white supremacist,” states the event’s website. “While you may want to invite a white friend or ally, to make this a safe and comfortable space for other POC, we ask that you do not.”

Now that we’ve brought back racial segregation as a progressive value, maybe we can make a new progressive Klan that will only harass white people? Then again it already exists. They call it Black Lives Matter. (Front Page)

Dear Dr Martin Luther Kings: I’m sorry that your movement became an utter failure, spit on your grave, and that you died for nothing.

All in the name of “tolerance” and “diversity”. 🙂

Orwell couldn’t have done any better.

Portland, OR:“Black Joy: Self Care Saturday for Black Girls and Women” will take place on November 28 at The Center for Intercultural Organizing, though there will only be one culture welcomed.

Oldham promises, “the day will be a safe space centered around Blackness, community love and radical healing.”

“It’s a space to self care and uplift black folks.

Up Lift them by Segregation. 🙂

“It’s important to reclaim that Black folks do have a space here and we can create our own. I think it is also important to just have spaces that are for ourselves, without any allies,” Oldham said.

Yes, nothing beats racism like segregation. There was a time in this country when blacks not only had their own “spaces”, but also their own schools, bathrooms, water fountains, etc…and for some reason they weren’t real happy about that. In fact there was this whole thing call the Civil Rights Movement that fought against segregation. Oldham should look it up on Wikipedia. (Downtrend)

I’ve been amused recently by strident calls from black students at UCLA who demand a blacks-only dormitory.

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL!!!

Gee, where have I heard that before? 🙂

Brown Vs. The Board of Education 1954 perhaps… 🙂

history2

And this time THEY WANT IT that way…. 🙂

Yet the irony of self-segregation isn’t lost on in that era of forced integration and hiring quotas based ONLY on race. The hilarity of “safe zones” is so Orwellian its very frightening.

Live and let live is not politically correct. Neither is do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Violate their “safe space” or “offend” then with disagreeing and your white, you’re automatically a callous, insensitive, evil, racist and bigot.

End of story.

As you’re well aware, social engineering is happening on a grand scale now. We see it from our dear POTUS, we see it in the courts, and we see it very clearly on college campuses. Since the new age of Sharpton and Jackson, blacks are learning and playing this game very well.

 

But when you have black students making demands on who and what color people are on a college campus we’ve gone to far. And even worse, now these brats want people punished for the simple act of not liking them.

In fact, there’s now a one-stop shop for Black Lives Matter activists and other campus whiners called TheDemands.org which posts ALL official demands from these groups. Take a look at it. You will not believe the crap they’re demanding.

As Steven Hayward writing for Powerline Blog reports, Nice of the protestors to gather all of their absurdity in one handy place.

Like this one from Tufts:

1. We demand that Black-identifying students make up 13 percent of Tufts undergraduate population.

 

“Black-identifying students?” Good to know Rachel Dolezal has a safe space waiting for her somewhere.

From Clemson University:

Additionally, we want a public commitment from the Clemson University Administration to prosecute criminally predatory behaviors anddefamatory speech committed by members of the Clemson University community (including, but not limited to, those facilitated by usage of social media).

So now Clemson is supposed to police Facebook and Twitter posts?

I’m surprised this demand from Middle Tennessee State University hasn’t received more media attention:

1. Change Forrest Hall, a group of students,faculty, and community members has one demand: the immediate removal of Nathan Bedford Forrest’s name from Middle Tennessee State University’s ROTC building.

How long before Washington and Lee University has to drop Lee’s name? And then Washington’s? Lewis and Clark? Can’t do that: imperialist exploiters. William and Mary? Nope: named for patriarchal privilege. Heck, why not drop all names from every college and university, and just go with “University?”

Students today have been raised to care about and act only on feelings. Not logic and reason. Talk to any college kid and you’ll see. They want fairness — even if it means being unfair to someone else. They don’t get the relationship here. They want free college even though it means it would cause damage to most of the country. They want free health care even though it’s not even rational or possible. Why do they want all of these things and more? Because they just feel it’s right. Yes it is…in cloud cuckoo land. (Eric Hall via Allen West)

I feel sick. But I’m white (and male! boo hiss!) so I’m not allowed to feel anything but my seething bigotry and racism because that’s all that defines me in the Politically Correct age of The Crybaby Generation. 🙂

 

 

 

 

 

It’s Worse than We Thought

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
It’s reality but not as we know it

John Hawkins: How radical, weird and out of touch have liberals on college campuses gotten since Obama came into office? It’s worse than you ever thought and although there is an almost unlimited number of problematic incidents to choose from, these 15 are particularly effective at getting across how bad things have become.

1) “College Students Say Remembering 9/11 Is Offensive to Muslims…. The everything-is-offensive brand of campus activism has struck a new low: Students at the University of Minnesota killed a proposed moment of silence for 9/11 victims due to concerns—insulting, childish concerns—that Muslim students would be offended.”

2) “Portland State University Offers Course Teaching How to ‘Make Whiteness Strange’…According to Portland State University Professor Rachel Sanders’ ‘White Privilege’ course, ‘whiteness’ must be dismantled if racial justice will ever be achieved. The course description states that ‘whiteness is the lynchpin of structures of racial meaning and racial inequality in the United States” and claims that ‘to preserve whiteness is to preserve racial injustice.’ Students taking the course will ‘endeavor to make whiteness strange.’ In order to make whiteness strange, the description says students must ‘interrogate whiteness as an unstable legal, political, social, and cultural construction.’”

 

3) “A University in the San Francisco Area Actually Told Students To Call 911 if They Were Offended….Administrators at a Catholic university in the San Francisco Bay Area have rescinded an official school policy instructing students to clog up the regional 9-1-1 emergency reporting system to report ‘bias incidents.’

The school is Santa Clara University, reports Campus Reform…Until this month, however, Santa Clara administrators have been instructing students to report ‘bias incidents’ using the emergency service reserved for dispatching police, firefighters and ambulances.

‘If the bias incident is in progress or just occurred: ALWAYS CALL 911 IMMEDIATELY,’ the Santa Clara website instructed students in fierce, all-capital letters.”

4) “Educators in the Volunteer State are very concerned that students might be offended by the usage of traditional pronouns like she, he, him and hers, according to a document from the University of Tennessee – Knoxville’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion.

…For all you folks who went to school back when there were only him and her – here’s a primer: some of the new gender neutral pronouns are ze, hir, zir, xe, xem and xyr.”

5) “A Professor at Polk State College has allegedly failed a humanities student after she refused to concede that Jesus is a ‘myth’ or that Christianity oppresses women during a series of mandatory assignments at the Florida college. According to a press release from the Liberty Counsel, a non-profit public interest law firm, Humanities Professor Lance ‘Lj’ Russum gave a student a ‘zero’ on four separate papers because the 16-year-old did not ‘conform to his personal worldviews of Marxism, Atheism, Feminism, and homosexuality.’ The law firm has called for a full, private investigation of the professor and the course curriculum.”

6) “College Codes Make ‘Color Blindness’ a Microaggression…wait, what?…. UCLA says “Color Blindness,” the idea we shouldn’t obsess over people’s race, is a microaggression. If you refuse to treat an individual as a ‘racial/cultural being,’ then you’re being aggressive.”

7) “The phrase ‘politically correct’ is now a microaggression according to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The university’s ‘Just Words’ campaign is the work of UWM’s ‘Inclusive Excellence Center’ and aims to ‘raise awareness of microaggressions and their impact’—microaggressions like ‘politically correct’ or ‘PC.’”

 

8) ) “‘American,’ ‘illegal alien,’ ‘foreigners,’ ‘mothering,’ and ‘fathering’ are just a handful of words deemed ‘problematic’ by the University of New Hampshire’s Bias-Free Language Guide….Saying ‘American’ to reference Americans is also problematic. The guide encourages the use of the more inclusive substitutes ‘U.S. citizen’ or ‘Resident of the U.S.’ The guide also tries to get students to stop saying ‘Caucasian,’ ‘illegal Immigrant,’ ‘mother,’ ‘father’ and even the word ‘healthy’ is said to shame those who aren’t healthy.”

9) “Late yesterday afternoon, ACLJ filed a lawsuit on behalf of Brandon Jenkins against officials of The Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC) in Maryland for denying Brandon admission to its Radiation Therapy Program in part due to his expression of religious beliefs. As one faculty member explained to Brandon, on behalf of CCBC, the ‘field [of radiation therapy] is not the place for religion.’”

10) “A California school co-founded by a firebrand who once called for an ‘intifada’ in the U.S. has become the nation’s first accredited Muslim college.”

11) “According to Coastal Carolina University, sex is only consensual if both parties are completely sober and if consent is not only present, but also enthusiastic. This is a troubling standard that converts many ordinary, lawful sexual encounters into sexual assault, and it should frighten any student at CCU.”

12) “Clemson University apologizes for serving Mexican food…Students took to Twitter to call the event culturally insensitive and to question the school’s efforts to promote diversity….Clemson Dining issued an apology to ‘offended’ students after hosting a ‘Maximum Mexican’ food day.”

13) “All-Women’s College Cancels ‘Vagina Monologues’ Because it Excludes Women Without Vaginas.”

14) “The ‘Black Lives Matter’ leader who landed a teaching gig at Yale University delivered a lecture this week on the historical merits of looting as a form of protest, backing up his lesson with required reading that puts modern-day marauders on par with the patriots behind the Boston Tea Party.”

15) “Assistant Dean (at Cornell) Tells a Project Veritas Investigative Journalist that the University Would Allow an ISIS Terrorist to Hold a ‘Training Camp’ on Campus, Saying: ‘It Would be Like Bringing in a Coach to do a Training on a Sports Team.'”

 
BE AFRAID of the Crybaby Generation, Be very Afraid.

Oh MY!

When Star Trek’s George Takei recently aimed his phasers at Chick-fil-A, the restaurant’s partisans ate his lunch. Takei, who played Hikaru Sulu on “Star Trek,” has made his mark as a liberal political activist.

Takei posted a list of “Companies You Should Avoid if You Support Gay Rights.” The featured image of the article is a Chick-fil-A bag.

And the end sentence: They’ve been blocked from opening a store in the Denver airport for their bigoted views.

These are the “diversity” police remember. The ones who preach “tolerance” at the end of a Lawyer’s sword.

You should know by now “anti-gay” means not willing kiss the Gay Mafia’s ass and appease them and their lawyers on speed dial for “offense”.

“These companies are free to have their own opinions, but we consumers are equally free to decide where to spend our money,” Takei wrote on Facebook.

Chick-fil-A’s fans then took over, flooding the page with reasons why Takei was wrong.

“Sorry George,” wrote Judy DeLaurentiis. “These companies have every right to their opinions and beliefs. Just as you do. You can’t demand these rights and then try to deny rights, freedom of speech and religion to anyone else who doesn’t agree with your views. Chicken fil a doesn’t discriminate against anyone. I’ve never seen anyone, ever, turned away and not served because of their sexual orientation at chick fil a.”

Others noted some actual evil in the world.

“If you are going as far to boycott what you consider anti-gay companies, better not buy any gasoline that comes from oil companies that was purchased in the Middle East where being gay there is a capital crime,” wrote Jason Roberts.

Some picked apart Takei’s logic.

“Careful with this kind of activism,” wrote Bob Wilkinson. “This logic is exactly what creates division and hate. Unintended consequences could include people with a different ideology deciding not to do business with those who do support gay rights. I like reading your posts George, but this is not an intelligent way to create positive change.”

Now ask, if any of the Leftist were actually comprehending any of it? 🙂

Perhaps the post from Chance Bunger said it best.

“I think I’ll just enjoy my chicken sandwich and leave politics out of lunch,” he wrote.

To wit, one of the first responses: Why? They use the money from your lunch to fund anti-equality groups.

Fascinating turn of phrase.

or “Human rights aren’t “politics”. “

They are so programmed they don’t even comprehend their talking points.

The some other companies (the article aborted suddenly):

Urban Outfitters: UO was labeled hypocritical after their CEO donated $13,000 to the campaign of anti-gay candidate Rick Santorum while the store sold “pro-gay” items.

HOW DARE THEY!

EXXON MOBIL: Well, that’s a given. They hate Gays and they are the cause of Global Warming, so they are a double threat.

“Exxon Mobil is the only Fortune 10 company that does not have a non-discrimination policy covering sexual orientation.”

WALMART: Big surprise. The most hated company by the LEFT, period.

“it has also associated with and donated to anti-gay organizations like Family Council Action Committee and the Christian Values Network.”

Are we starting to smell a trend here?  If you give to “pro-gay” causes and politicians you are good, if you ever gave to anyone who is even remotely against their political agenda, you’re a bigot and on the naughty list.

But it’s not about politics. 🙂

A-1 Storage (who?): A self-storage company in California.

“Owner Terry Caster and his family donated $693,000 to fight same-sex marriage in California back in 2008, earning a boycott from groups like Californians Against Hate.The Casters were the second largest contributors to Proposition 8…”
The defense of marriage act that passed, which means it’s automatically anti-gay and makes them bigots.

Next up: THE SALVATION ARMY!  Seriously…

“The seemingly wholesome organization harbors some deep anti-gay sentiments.Despite a PR push to refute their homophobic reputation, internal documents were leaked that confirm discrimination is alive and well at the Salvation Army.”

Leaked by a Liberal no doubt “heroically”.

So once again, if you disagree with a Leftist, you’re bigot. End of Discussion.

Alden Grove on Facebook response: I love this. It’s horrifically impressive how far into the sand, the clouds, and their own asses the “just live your life” people are. Do you have any idea how shaped the life you live is from the politics of the people who came before you?

Enjoy the sanctimony. The Left sure does. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

A Fool and his Freedom are soon Parted

Don’t fall for the ‘marriage equality’ sales pitch. It’s a deception.

Same-sex marriage is a notion that contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I doubt many have thought this through, with the ironic exception of the elites who have been pushing the agenda the hardest.

Most people are weary of it all and going along to get along, especially since dissent has become such a socially expensive proposition, almost overnight. That in itself should deeply concern anyone who values freedom of expression.

Sure, true believers scattered across the land really do think the entire project ends with allowing same-sex couples to marry. Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.

The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.

The Rainbow’s Arc

Unintended consequences usually come about when we are ignorant or maybe lazy about a course of action. But we usually crash land after following an arc of logic, which in this case has gone largely undiscerned and unaddressed in the public square.

Americans are in a fog about how marriage equality will lead to more central planning and thought policing. This is partly because the media and Hollywood only provide slogans to regurgitate while academics and judges push politically correct speech codes to obey.

Let’s explore the fallout of that arc of faulty logic. Included below are some 15 of the gaping holes in the “marriage equality” reasoning that Americans have not thought through.

1. The Kids Are Not Alright

In March, six adult children from LGBT households filed amicus briefs opposing genderless marriage: see here, here, and here. You can read testimonials of many such children in a newly released anthology by Robert Oscar Lopez and Rivka Edelman, “Jephthah’s Daughters: Innocent Casualties in the War for Family ‘Equality.’”

Whenever a parent is missing—for whatever reason—a child feels a primal wound. In this respect, parents belong to their children more than children belong to their parents. We ought to recognize that privileges of civil marriage should ultimately exist for children, not for adults. Children have the right to know their origins and not to be treated as commodities. Same-sex parenting—which increasingly involves human trafficking, particularly with artificial reproductive technologies (see number eight)—deliberately deprives a child of a mother and/or a father. The “marriage equality” agenda requires that such children bear that burden alone and repress their primal wound in silence.

2. Love’s Got Nothing to Do with State Interest in Marriage

“Love is love” is an empty slogan when it comes to state interest in marriage. How two people feel about one another is none of the state’s business. The state’s interest is limited to the heterosexual union because that’s the only union that produces the state’s citizenry.

And it still is, whether the union happens traditionally or in a petri dish. Each and every one of us—equally and without exception—only exists through the heterosexual union. In any free and functioning society, there is a state interest in encouraging as much as possible those who sire and bear us to be responsible for raising us.

3. The Infertility Canard

Just as the state has no litmus test for feelings or motives, it has no litmus test for any heterosexual couple who do not produce children because of intent, infertility, or age. Conflating same-sex couples with childless or elderly heterosexual couples seems to be the fallacy of composition: claiming something must be true of the whole because it’s true of some part of the whole.

Sorry, but the heterosexual union, no matter how it takes place, is the only way any citizen exists, including intersex and transgender citizens. So recognizing that union without prejudice remains the only reason for state interest in marriage.

4. Same-Sex Marriage Will Settle Nothing

It’s only the starting point for a glut of philosophically related demands for state recognition and approval of many other types of relationships, including polygamy and incest. This will mark the sudden beginning of an even more sudden end for same-sex marriage, not so much because those other types of relationships prove immoral, but because they serve as exhibits for the argument that all civil marriage—including same-sex marriage—is unsustainable and discriminatory.

5. ‘Marriage Equality’ Opens the Path for ‘Unmarried Equality’

There’s a movement waiting in the wings called “unmarried equality,” which argues that all civil marriage should be abolished because it privileges married people over singles. If same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, it will set the precedent for abolishing marriage. Far from getting the state out of the marriage business, it will invite the state to regulate all familial relationships, particularly those with children. Once the state doesn’t have to recognize your marriage, it is freer to treat your spouse and children as strangers to you.

6. Transgenderism Is a Big Part of This Package

Americans have not thought through the implications of same-sex marriage and how it is logically a big step to erasing all sex distinctions in law. If we become legally sexless, the implications are vast when it comes to how or whether the state will recognize family relationships such as mother, father, son, or daughter. There’s already a push to eliminate sex identification at birth, which could mean removing sex distinctions on birth certificates. This will seem logical because all gender identity non-discrimination laws already presume that everybody’s sex is something arbitrarily “assigned” to them at birth.

7. It’s an Open Invitation for State Licensing of Parents

If we allow the abolition of sex distinctions and civil marriage—both of which are written into the social DNA of same-sex marriage—we logically allow the state to gain greater control over deciding familial relationships. Civil marriage so far has presumed that a child born into a heterosexual union has the default right to be raised by his biological parents together. How can the presumption of maternity or paternity survive in a legal system that recognizes neither sex distinctions nor a marriage relationship?

The bellwethers are out there. MSNBC anchor Melissa Harris-Perry did a “Forward” spot for the Obama administration in which she stated that all children “belong” to communities, not families. Another friend of the Obama administration, gender legal theorist Martha Fineman, calls for state-subsidized care-giving units to replace marriage and the family.

8. Same-Sex Marriage Commodifies Children

You may think artificial reproductive technologies (ART) are fine as an avenue to obtain children for those unable to conceive. But in the context of genderless marriage, ART ramps up the potential for human trafficking. Check anonymousus.com to read testimonies of grief and loss felt by children who were conceived in this manner. Check the movies “Eggsploitation” and “Breeders” by the Center for Bioethics and Culture to hear stories of the exploitation of women in the industry. There is definitely an element of human bondage in all of this, particularly because human beings are being deliberately separated from their mothers and fathers, in a way that echoes the wounds of slavery’s separations and the search for one’s roots.

9. It Sets a Head-On Collision Course with Freedom of Religion

The handwriting is on the wall. You need only reflect on how a screaming mob managed to conjure up total surrender from Indiana Gov. Mike Pence so he would reject that state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Catholic Charities is closing its adoption services where same-sex marriage laws pressure them to reject their church’s teachings about marriage and family. Owners of businesses that serve the wedding industry are being forced to either scrap their consciences or shut their doors. Anti-discrimination lawsuits against churches that don’t perform same-sex marriages will undoubtedly increase.

10. It Sets a Collision Course for Freedom of Speech and Press

Campus speech codes. Social punishment. Firing Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla for discovering his thought crime of privately believing in marriage six years prior. The utter compliance of virtually every big business in America, every media outlet, every pundit who is permitted to have a voice in the public square.

11. It’s Especially On a Collision Course with Freedom of Association

I already mentioned that abolishing civil marriage, along with legal sex distinctions, puts the government in a better position to regulate familial relationships, and probably to license parents. If we think deeply about these things, it’s hard to avoid the fact that freedom of association begins with family autonomy, a place where the state is supposed to leave you alone in your most intimate relationships. It’s hard to see how freedom of association is not affected, especially when PC speech codes have everyone constantly checking their chit chat with neighbors, co-workers, and classmates. At Marquette University, staff were told that any conversation or remarks construed to be against same-sex marriage were to be reported to Human Resources, even if just inadvertently overheard.

12. Same-Sex Kills Privacy by Growing Bureaucracy

With the erosion of family autonomy practically guaranteed by the rainbow arc of same-sex marriage, private life will tend to evaporate, just as it always does in centrally planned societies. Distrust grows because people fear punishment for expressing dissenting views. The emphasis on political correctness in the name of equality, coupled with an ever-growing bureaucracy, is a perfect environment in which to percolate a surveillance society.

13. It’s Meant to Be a Global Agenda

The United States is already punishing countries and threatening to cut off aid if they don’t accept the LGBT agenda. This is especially true of developing countries, in which the whole idea is foreign to over 95 percent of the population. According to a report by Rep. Steve Stockman, corroborated by a Pentagon official, the administration held back critical intelligence from Nigeria which would have aided in locating girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. The new National Security Strategy recently released by the White House makes clear that the LGBT agenda is a global agenda. And it looks a lot like cultural imperialism of the worst kind.

14. It Promises a Monolithic Society of Conformity

In the past year or two, everyone with something to lose by opposing same-sex marriage—with the honorable exception of Eich—seems to have scuttled their principles. Five years ago, the American Psychological Association voted 157-0—that’s right, ZERO—to support genderless marriage. For an excellent assessment of what this sort of conformity means for a free society, read Brendan O’Neill’s article in Spiked, entitled “Gay Marriage: A Case Study in Conformism.” The agenda was imposed by elites, entirely due to a methodical blitzkrieg of programs and enforcement dictated from above. Same-sex marriage simply could not come about without suppressing dissent in all of our institutions.

15. Expect More Severe Punishment for Dissent

If you think the bullying of businesses, churches, and individuals who don’t get with the LGBT program now is bad, it promises to get much worse once codified. Is this really the sort of society you wish to live in? Where expressing an opinion from your heart on faith, family, marriage, relationships, love, or the very nature of reality—is routinely attacked as hate speech? Because that is exactly what you need to expect.

Justice Anthony Kennedy made it very clear in his words of the Windsor decision that any dissent on same-sex marriage was tantamount to animus. It is but a short step from presuming animus to punishing dissent.

So perhaps the biggest question hanging in the air is this: What will the authorities decide to do to dissenters?

The Tolerance Game

 This may not be as flashy as Hillary or Obama, but it still about Freedom and the intolerance of The Left that will come for you some day if you don’t do something about it. (anyone else find the banners ironic?) 🙂

Nothing says tolerance than being called the C-word for supporting religious freedom, or having a student-led petition started to have your banner removed at your respective school. That’s exactly what happened to Lindsey Kolb, a senior student at Missouri State University in Springfield, after she voiced her opinions in support of religious freedom a few weeks ago. At the time, the city was debating whether to add sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) to its nondiscrimination statutes.  Some, like Lindsey, felt the religious exemption wasn’t specific enough.

Yet, before we get into the liberal intolerance that was thrown at Kolb, let’s discuss a little more about the law’s aspects.

As the Springfield News-Leader reported, anyone found guilty of violating the ordinance would be served with a 180-day jail sentence and a $1,000 fine, though the city’s attorney said virtually all of these infractions would only result in a financial penalty. As for existing law, local columnists have come to the same scenario in question: bathrooms:

One thing that does change is that a business owner would not be able to preemptively kick someone out because the owner believes that person is a threat. As it stands now, if a business owner believes a person is in the “wrong” bathroom, the owner would have the right to tell the person to leave the business. With sexual orientation and gender identity protections in place, the person who is asked to leave would have the recourse to file a complaint with the Mayor’s Commission on Human Rights.

As for the religious exemption [emphasis mine]:

One ordinance suggested by the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Task Force included a broad religious exemption. Basically, any business owner could deny service if he or she did so on religious terms. However, the version of the ordinance the city adopted only exempts strictly religious organizations.For example, a church can deny employment to whomever it chooses, for any reason. A religious person, who owns a call center, shoe store, or any other such business, cannot.

And therein lies the controversy; a private business owner who is deeply religious would be forced to go against his own faith and beliefs. It’s the baker and the gay wedding cake scenario.

Kolb wrote an op-ed in the Standard on March 31, one week before the scheduled vote on the bill–in response to a satire piece that mocked Christians. Yet, it’s her final paragraph that struck at heart of the battles now raging over religious freedom laws:

My last point is to call for the entire community to engage in civil discourse regarding this topic. I ask you to consider both sides, read the bill, talk to your friends, talk to your family, do some research and come up with your own decision concerning your vote. Last week in The Standard, the attempt at making an argument for one side attempted to cease the conversation by using name-calling, making light of valuable political conversation and attacking one community with hopes that it will relieve tension on another community. This is not only unprofessional, unproductive and immature, but it is not held to the standards that our university has poured into our lives. Missouri State University is dedicated both to public affairs and creating educated persons. Let’s start having conversations now about important issues rather than turning to insulting tactics.

Trying to talk rational sense to The radical Left, now that’s just crazy!

On April 7, the ordinance failed by a narrow margin.* Nevertheless, the “Get Kolb” campaign was up and running.

They needed to lynch someone for losing. It couldn’t be them. Someone’s scalp had to pay for this injustice!!

Kolb said that the vitriol aimed at her included people telling her that she should commit suicide, along with other attacks laced with profanity and misogynist language (don’t be a cunt).

Kolb is former president of MSU’s College Republicans chapter and the State Chairwoman for the Missouri Federation of College Republicans, as well as a university ambassador, which explains one petition urging the school to remove her banner hanging on Carrington Hall–the main administrative building on campus.

From the petition’s description on Change.org, it says it doesn’t aim to make Kolb a “scapegoat,” (more like sacrificial goat to the God of  Progressive Liberalism) though it also says its impetus was grounded in “the things Lindsey has said in the past.” It’s an ideological mess [emphasis mine]:

My goal here is not to make Lindsey a scapegoat for the way the vote turned out yesterday [April 7] or attack her religious rights or right to free speech. The goal is to create dialogue that induces change here on campus and in our city. Yes, last night’s vote was disappointing, but the petition was not made because of the way things turned out, it was made because of the things Lindsey has said in the past that include the comments she made last night. I respect Lindsey’s right to say what she believes just as much as I ask anyone to respect my right to voice my opinion, however when one is the representative for something larger than themselves, it is important that their opinions and values align with those of the entity they represent. <Ours only> Missouri State claims to value its Public Affairs mission pillars of Ethical Leadership, Cultural Competence, and Community Engagement and each year chooses one pillar to highlight. This year, the chosen pillar is Ethical Leadership. In GEP classes, students are assigned projects to define and identify ethical leaders in our world. At SOAR, new students do group activities that represent our Public Affairs mission and one that I specifically remember is the one in regards to Ethical Leadership. My SOAR [Student Orientation, Advisement and Registration] group found that an ethical leader is one who has their own set of values but can recognize when the greater good requires them to set those values aside.…

Whenever Lindsey was approached in 2013 to be on the banner on Missouri State’s most recognizable building, she agreed. Through that agreement she also vowed to live our Public Affairs mission and be culturally competent, engage in her community, and be an ethical leader. For Missouri State to continue to endorse her discriminatory views is effectively showing that they do not in fact value ethical leadership. The goal of the petition is not to attack free speech or victimize Lindsey. The goal is to show that there are consequences to one’s speech whenever it is inflammatory and supports discrimination against those who the speaker represents.

Lindsey is not to blame for the loss for the LGBT+ community last night, but signing the petition can help change our campus and our city for the better. (which means we are going to sacrifice HER anyways for our political needs)

This classic American progressivism; we support free speech, just our version of free speech. At least they note that Kolb isn’t to blame for the failure of the ordinance since she has zero skin in the political game in Springfield.

“Personally, I don’t vote in Springfield. I vote in my home district. I advocated for the repeal because I believe in religious freedom. I believe that churches, businesses, and organizations, and people with religious convictions should be able to decide whom they serve,” she said.

Well, she’s in the majority. Overall, while Americans generally support gay marriage rights, a AP/GFK poll found that 57 percent think that a wedding-related business should be allowed to refuse service to a gay couple if it violates their religious beliefs.

In a poll conducted by Wilson Perkins Allen Opinion Research on behalf of the Family Research Council, they found 81 percent of Americans believed government “should leave people free to follow their beliefs about marriage as they live their daily lives at work and in the way they run their businesses.”

The Left and their false sense of Sanctimony and “outrage” would never TOLERATE such a thing. 🙂

Ironic is it not?

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Commander-in-Chief PETTY officer

There seems to be no end to the damage President Obama will inflict upon the nation of Israel. While wooing a genocidal regime in Tehran, this administration has treated our staunchest Middle East ally with a mix of pettiness, contempt and rage.

Following Benjamin Netanyahu’s huge election victory, Obama grumbled that it was time to “reassess” America’s relationship with Israel. Monday he began that effort when, for the first time ever, the U.S. delegation refused to speak in defense of Israel at the UN Human Rights Council. The council was adhering to the sinister-sounding Agenda Item 7, which mandates the discussion of “Israeli human rights violations” at every meeting.

Now the administration has shifted from mere rhetoric and diplomatic maneuvers to irreparable harm. The Jewish Press revealed that the U.S. has declassified Top Secret intelligence on Israel’s nuclear program:

The United States has just revealed a stunning amount of information on some of Israel’s the most closely guarded secrets: information about its military cooperation with America and 20 years’ worth of details on Israel’s nuclear technology development, up to the 1980s.

The 386-page report, composed in 1987 by the federally funded Institute for Defense Analysis, (an NGO that operates under the Pentagon), is titled “Critical Technological Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations.”

It was declassified by the Pentagon in early February – but oddly, the report has been redacted so as to black out or withhold everything the Institute wrote on America’s NATO allies – but to reveal all that American experts assembled in Israel.

Interestingly, no one reported the declassification other than two hostile news agencies that apparently were tipped off: Russia’s Putin-funded RT network and Iran’s mullah-funded Press TV. The Weekly Standard explains why this report’s release is such a big deal:

Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons. To do so might spark a regional nuclear arms race, and eventual nuclear confrontation.

The declassification is a serious breach of decades’ old understandings concerning this issue between Israel and its north American and certain European allies.

The Pentagon’s February declassification coincided with intense pressure on the Netanyahu government by the Obama administration, trying to force the Israeli prime minister to cancel a planned speech to Congress questioning the wisdom of a highly risky nuclear deal with the Iranian regime.

However, in the past 24 hours several media in the U.S. and elsewhere have now chosen to report on the February declassification by the Pentagon. This coincides with stepped up efforts this week by the Obama administration to weaken Israel’s deterrent capabilities, including leaking to the Wall Street Journal incorrect allegations that Israel directly spies on the U.S.

Consider me unsurprised that the guy who smiled and nodded his way through two decades of anti-semitic sermons and is friends with Israel haters like Rashid Khalidi and Bill Ayers is doing everything he can to undermine that nation. I wouldn’t be surprised by year’s end to see Obama refer to Israel as “the Zionist entity.”

It will be interesting to watch politically savvy Democrats distance themselves from Obama’s intensifying assault on the Middle East’s only democracy. Hopefully they won’t wait for Iran to get nukes before speaking up. (they will, and it’ll be GWB’s fault!)

Question for the comment section: Why should any ally trust the U.S. government now? (Jon Gabriel)

Under Obama, you can’t. Period. Neither can America.

THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA now matter how narcissistic, petty,dangerous,  or unconstitutional it is no one is safe from THE EGO FROM THE DAWN OF TIME!

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

Have Your Gay Cake & Get Eaten Too!

A conservative legal firm is accusing a member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission of comparing a baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding to “slave owners and perpetrators of the Holocaust” in a new legal brief filed with a the Colorado Court of Appeals.

Part Two, below from Canada is even funnier: Lesbian Vs. Muslim in a  “Human Rights” Grudge Match!

The Alliance Defending Freedom, the firm representing Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who created a national controversy after refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, released a statement Monday that included controversial words attributed to civil rights commissioner Diann Rice

Rice’s purported comments were uttered during a commission hearing on July 25 last year and include the central claim that religion has, many times in the past, been used to harm and impede the rights of others.

“I would also like to reiterate what we said in … the last meeting [concerning Jack Phillips]. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust,” Rice said. “I mean, we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use – to use their religion to hurt others.”

So the Freedom Religion guaranteed in the First Amendment of the US Constitution is “discriminatory” and “despicable rhetoric”.

This is the Human Rights Education Association’s definition of slavery:

“To be a slave is to be controlled by another person or persons so that your will does not determine your life’s course, and rewards for your work and sacrifices are not yours to claim.”

Sounds like the Baker, to me. With the Gay Mafia and the Courts as the slave master.

Oh, as for that pesky Freedom of Speech & The Press, we turn to Andrea Mitchell- NBC NEWS:

“So why is it permissible to be as provocative as these anti-Muslim cartoons were?” Andrea Mitchell NBC News asked The French Ambassador about the Paris Terrorist attacks, before ominously adding, “This is a debate we’re having in the United States as well, you know.”
Yeah, why do you permit freedom of speech (offending someone) and freedom of the press? That’s debatable? Really??
These are “journalists” from the “news” Media whose freedom comes from the same place as yours does. Maybe we should debate still having it.

So let’s face it, to a Liberal The First Amendment is “offensive” and “discriminatory” and should just be gotten rid of altogether. 🙂

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!

Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Jeremy Tedesco said in a statement that these ideals reflect “alarming bias and hostility” toward Phillips’ religious beliefs and are specifically troubling in that they come from a member of a governmental commission that monitors how the baker can conduct his business in light of his faith.

“Commissioner Rice compared a private citizen who owns a small bakery to slaveholders and Holocaust perpetrators merely for asking that the state respect his right to free speech and free exercise of religion,” Tedesco said. ”Her comments suggest that others on the commission may share her view. This anti-religious bigotry undermines the integrity of the entire process and the commission’s order as well.”

As TheBlaze has previously reported, problems began for Phillips after he declined to make a wedding cake for Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, a gay couple who approached him in 2012; they subsequently waged a complaint against Phillips, which has led to a legal battle over his refusal. 

Phillips told TheBlaze last June that he had no intention of providing confectionery services for gay and lesbian weddings even after Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission upheld a judge’s ruling that the baker was wrong to deny making the cake.

“I’m not going to make cakes for same-sex weddings,” he told TheBlaze at the time. “That violates my First Amendment speech … and my duty as a Christian abiding by my savior.”

Phillips said that he stopped taking all wedding cake orders last March, just three months after Judge Robert N. Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts ruled against him, finding that he must serve gay couples.

In addition to making told he must not discriminate when making wedding cakes, the commission also said that he needed to “re-educate his staff that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act means that artists must endorse same-sex marriage regardless of their religious beliefs,” according to Alliance Defending Freedom.

The ever “tolerant” Left.

Additionally, Phillips will need to file quarterly reports for a period of two years to detail which patrons were declined service along with the reason for that decision.

So now you get also (and this one makes cynical heart laugh) From Toronto, Ontario (2012) – The pinch line is at the end from 2014.

Lesbian Vs. Muslim in a  “Human Rights” Grudge Match!

So a lesbian walks into a Muslim barbershop, and asks for a “businessmen’s haircut”.

It sounds like the beginning of a joke, but it really happened, and now a government agency called the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario will hear her complaint.

Faith McGregor is the lesbian who doesn’t like the girly cuts that they do at a salon. She wants the boy’s hairdo.

Omar Mahrouk is the owner of the Terminal Barber Shop in Toronto. He follows Shariah law, so he thinks women have cooties. As Mahrouk and the other barbers there say, they don’t believe in touching women other than their own wives.

But that’s what multiculturalism and unlimited immigration from illiberal countries means. A central pillar of many immigrant cultures is the second-class citizenship of women and gays.

So if we now believe in multiculturalism, and that our Canadian culture of tolerance isn’t any better than the Shariah culture of sex crimes and gender apartheid, who are we to complain when Omar Mahrouk takes us up on our promise that he can continue to practise his culture — lesbian haircuts be damned?

He’s not the one who passed the Multiculturalism Act, and invited in hundreds of thousands of immigrants with medieval attitudes towards women and gays and Jews, etc. We did.

Mahrouk’s view is illiberal. But in Canada we believe in property rights and freedom of association — and in this case, freedom of religion, too.

But McGregor ran to the Human Rights Tribunal and demanded that Mahrouk give her a haircut.

In the past, human rights commissions have been a great ally to gay activists. Because, traditionally, gay activists have complained against Christians. And white Christians are the one ethnic identity group that human rights commissions don’t value, and that multiculturalism doesn’t include.

In recent years, Canadian human rights commissions have weighed a complaint about a women’s-only health club that refused a pre-operative transsexual male who wanted to change in the locker rooms.

They’ve ordered bed and breakfasts owned by Christian families to take in gay couples. They’ve censored pastors and priests who have criticized gay marriage. Gays win, because it’s a test of who is most outraged and offended.

But in the case of the Muslim barbers, the gay activists have met their match. If the test is who can be the most offended or most politically correct, a lesbian’s just not going to cut it.

Oh, McGregor is politically correct. But just not politically correct enough. It’s like poker.

A white, Christian male has the lowest hand — it’s like he’s got just one high card, maybe an ace. So almost everyone trumps him.

A white woman is just a bit higher — like a pair of twos. Enough to beat a white man, but not much more.

A gay man is like having two pairs in poker.

A gay woman — a lesbian like McGregor — is like having three of a kind.

A black lesbian is a full house — pretty tough to beat.

Unless she’s also in a wheelchair, which means she’s pretty much a straight flush.

The only person who could trump that would be a royal flush. If the late Sammy Davis Jr. — who was black, Jewish and half-blind — were to convert to Islam and discover he was 1/64th Aboriginal.

So which is a better hand: A lesbian who wants a haircut or a Muslim who doesn’t want to give it to her?

I’m betting on Mahrouk. And I predict that Muslim activists — not quiet barbers like Mahrouk, but professional Muslim busybodies — will start using human rights commissions more and more to push their way into places where they have no legal right, but where the human rights commissions are more than happy to engineer things for them, if they complain loud enough.

If I were a gay activist, I’d probably want to declare victory and shut down these human rights commissions right now.

In five years time, it won’t be gay activists forcing themselves into Christian B&Bs. It’ll be Muslim activists vetoing the gay pride parade.

Well, Sharia Law dictates I believe stoning these people to death. Now that’s quite a haircut… 🙂

But at least they were Politically Correct and “Multi-culturally sensistive” 🙂

Resolution: They bought each other off.

“Both Ms. McGregor and Mr. Mahrouk signed a confidentiality agreement that bars them from sharing any details — common practice when a conflict ends in mediation instead of moving on to an actual tribunal. But both expressed relief in the process.”

So the gay mafia lost this round and they used lawyers to force everyone to shut up about it.

“I probably wasn’t as stressed out as he was because I think there was more at stake for him,” Ms. McGregor said. “The resolution we came to I think is good. I’m satisfied with it,” she said, adding that she feels the process worked.

“I’m happy with the outcome.”

She got some legal “extortion” $$$$ no doubt. 🙂

When the story hit the media, Mr. Mahrouk declined to say much, but his colleague spoke with the Toronto Star:

“We live for our values. We are people who have values and we hold on to it. I am not going to change what the faith has stated to us to do. This is not extreme — this is just a basic value that we follow,” Karim Saaden, co-owner of the Terminal Barber Shop, told the paper. (Nationalpaper.com)

Funny, The Cake Baker said the same thing, only he’s “wrong”. 🙂

Fascinating.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez