Thou Shalt Not…Part II

Bacon, the Devil’s Food!

After Being Fined and Forced to Host Gay Weddings, Christian Farm Owners Make Drastic Decision That ‘Will Likely Hurt Their Business’

I want to thank the Egotistical Liberals for their “tolerance” and “sensitivity” for ruining the “choice” for everyone because they have to feel powerful and stroke their egos!

They go looking for people to sue and be “offended” by. It gives them power.

Yeah, they stuck it to those “hateful” “right wing Christians”! And I’m sure they are damn proud of themselves!

Congrats, you spoiled it for everyone. Your “discrimination” has hurt our “choice”. Your “freedom” to have your Lawyer-on-Speed-Dial crush anyone anytime some uppity non-Gay Liberal dares to get in your way is very “diverse” and loving of you.

Some are just more “equal” than others…. 🙂

Should the government be in the business of “re-educating” its citizens to change their moral beliefs?

No. But don’t tell that to the Sanctimonious Left!

A husband and wife who were fined $13,000 and told they could not discriminate against same-sex couples after refusing to allow a gay wedding on their New York farm have announced that they will “no longer host any wedding ceremonies on their property.”

“Going forward, [Cynthia and Robert Gifford] have decided to no longer host any wedding ceremonies on their property (other than the ones already under contract),” Alliance Defending Freedom attorney James Trainor told TheBlaze in a statement.

A judge ruled earlier this month that the Giffords’ farm is a public accommodation because they rent their space out, and they therefore must abide by New York anti-discrimination law.

“Since the order essentially compelled them to do all ceremonies or none at all, they have chosen the latter in order to stay true to their religious convictions, even though it will likely hurt their business in the short run,” Trainor said.

The family will continue hosting wedding receptions, but ceremonies — which have traditionally been hosted inside the Giffords’ home on the property or at another nearby location — will immediately cease. Same-sex receptions will be allowed on the grounds.

The move comes after Jennifer McCarthy and Melisa Erwin, a lesbian couple, approached Cynthia and Robert Giffords in 2012 and inquired about holding their nuptials at the Liberty Ridge Farm in Schaghticoke, New York.

The Giffordses, who are Christian and hold the belief that marriage is restricted to one man and one woman, said the couple was welcome to hold their reception on the property, but not the actual ceremony.

McCarthy and Erwin complained to New York’s Division of Human Rights, claiming they had been discriminated against as a result of their sexual orientation.

A judge subsequently ruled in their favor, rejecting the Giffords’ argument that the family owns a private business that is legally permitted to issue such refusals.

Judge Migdalia Pares ruled that Liberty Ridge Farm is a public accommodation because it rents its space and regularly collects fees from the public. The judge said the fact that the owners live on the premises does not mean that their business is private in nature.

Pares ordered that the Giffordses must abide by anti-discrimination regulations under New York’s Human Rights Law and must pay a $10,000 fine, as well as an additional $1,500 each to McCarthy and Erwin, Religion News Service reported.

A representative for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal firm, told TheBlaze that in addition to the fines, New York State is forcing the Giffordses to” teach classes to their employees that impose the state’s view of marriage.” Gay marriage was legalized in the state in 2011.

The Alliance Defending Freedom said the Giffordses should have the right to hold and exercise their religious views without the “threat of government punishment.”

The Giffordses and their attorneys believe that the family has been punished for taking a biblical position and for exercising their First Amendment rights.

“The government should not force anyone to participate in or celebrate an event that violates their faith and beliefs. However, that’s exactly what the state of New York has done to the Giffords,” the firm said. “The Giffords serve all people with respect and care. They have hired homosexual employees and have hosted events for same-sex couples.”

The family has not yet decided if it will appeal the judge’s decision. (The Blaze)

The Giffords must pay a $1,500 mental anguish fine to each of the women and pay $10,000 in civil damages penalty to New York State. If they can’t pay in 60 days, a nine percent interest rate will be added to that total. Like Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Giffords must also institute anti-discrimination re-education classes and procedures for their staff. (Daily Signal)

But what do I know…I’m just a “hater”…:)

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

 

 

 

 

Thou Shalt Not…

Do not Violate the Sanctimony of The Politically Correct Leftist Activist or else they will find a judge who crush you for your impudence, slave.

This, by the way, is the “pro-choice”, “tolerance”, “diversity”, “fair”, “compassionate” Left. 🙂

Owners of a family farm in Schaghticoke, New York, are being fined $13,000 for refusing to allow a gay wedding ceremony to take place on their property in 2012, just one year after the state legalized same-sex nuptials.

Cynthia and Robert Gifford, owners of Liberty Ridge Farm, a family-friendly farm and special events venue, told Jennifer McCarthy and Melisa Erwin, a lesbian couple from Newark, New Jersey, that they were welcome to hold their reception on the property, but not the actual wedding ceremony, according to Religion News Service.

The Giffords live on the premises and these ceremonies are typically conducted on the first floor of their home or on the nearby property. Considering that they are Christians and consider marriage to be confined to relationships involving one man and one woman, the two weren’t comfortable hosting McCathy and Erwin’s nuptials.

An attorney for the couple told Religion News Service that the two have both employed gay staffers and hosted events for same-sex couples in the past, but that a gay wedding ceremony in their home was too close for comfort.

McCarthy and Erwin weren’t happy with this rejection, so they took their complaint to the New York’s Division of Human Rights, claiming that they were discriminated against as a result of their sexual orientation.

Yeah, like it was the only wedding chapel type farm in all of North America. Boo-Hoo. Gee, ever heard of talking your money somewhere else, instead of ringing your Lawyer on speed dial!

A judge subsequently ruled in their favor in the case New York State Division of Human Rights v. Liberty Ridge Farm, rejecting the Giffords’ argument that the family owns a private business that is legally permitted to issue such refusals.

Judge Migdalia Pares, who argued that the fact that the owners live on the premises does not mean that the business is private in nature, ruled that Liberty Ridge Farm is a public accommodation as it rents its space and regularly collects fees from the public.

So their house is a public accommodation? Fascinating…

As a result, the judge found that the couple must abide by anti-discrimination regulations under New York’s Human Rights Law, ruling that the Giffords must pay a $10,000 fine and give an additional $1,500 each to McCarthy and Erwin, Religion News Service reported.

“No one should have the happiest time of their life marred by discrimination,” McCarthy, who was represented alongside her wife by the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement, according to the New York Law Journal. “We hope this decision will protect all New Yorkers from having to go through the hurt that we experienced.”

Or, they could have just been mature and “tolerant” and gone somewhere else. But no, the little Dominatrix’s wanted you to bow down to them or else!

They wanted to be offended so they could get their Speed Dial Lawyers and Leftist Agenda Judges out to summarily crush the infidels who dared to defy them!

But attorney James Trainor of Cutler, Trainor & Cutler, who represented the Giffords, said that the recent Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision that barred the government from forcing small companies with religious objections to provide controversial birth control devices for employees should have been considered in this case.

“The judge and commissioner each had the opportunity to reconsider the Giffords’ religious rights after the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that businesses can exercise the religious rights of their owners in Hobby Lobby decision of June 30, yet failed to do so,” Trainor told the New York Law Journal.

It is currently unclear whether the Giffords will continue a legal battle against the ruling.

A phone message left for the Giffords by TheBlaze Thursday was not immediately returned. (The Blaze)

Unfortunately, New York’s Human Right’s law (Executive Law, art. 15) creates special privileges based on sexual orientation that trump the rights of business owners. Because the Giffords’ family farm is open to the public for business, New York classifies it as a “public accommodation” and then mandates that it not “discriminate” on the basis of sexual orientation.

So they have special rights. They are More “equal” than you. Now that’s fair.

Man, I need to see if I can find my college roommates, The Gay Wiccan and The Satanist, we need a New York Holiday. 🙂

Of course the Giffords were not engaging in any insidious discrimination—they were acting on their belief about the nature of marriage. They do not object to gay or lesbian customers attending the fall festivals, or going berry picking, or doing any of the other activities that the farm facilitates. The Giffords’ only objection is to being forced to abide by the government’s views on sexuality and host a same-sex wedding. The Human Rights Commission has now declared this historic belief about marriage to be “discrimination.”

The Giffords must pay a $1,500 mental anguish fine to each of the women and pay $10,000 in civil damages penalty to New York State. If they can’t pay in 60 days, a nine percent interest rate will be added to that total. Like Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Giffords must also institute anti-discrimination re-education classes and procedures for their staff.

The question before all citizens is whether this law and this fine are just. Should the government be able to force family businesses to betray their consciences and participate in ceremonies that violate their beliefs? Should the government be in the business of “rehabilitating” consciences or “re-educating” its citizens to change their moral beliefs about the definition of marriage?

Government should not create special legal privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Instead, government should protect the rights of Americans and the associations they form to act in the public square in accordance with their beliefs. The Giffords’ case illustrates the growing conflict between religious liberty rights and laws that grant special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In a nation founded on limited government and religious freedom, government should not attempt to coerce any citizen, association, or business into celebrating same-sex relationships.

But we’re talking about the Sanctimony and the Outrage of the Politically Correct Thought Police Leftists who want to force you, in the name of “fairness”, “tolerance” and “diversity” to bow down and submit to them like a good submissive slave does to their Masters and Mistresses.

Infidels!!!

What could possibly be wrong with that? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

 

Cherry Picking

We’ve been hearing lots of talk of “economic recovery” and “reductions in unemployment” and “better days ahead” in the mainstream media.  It’s now about eight months until the 2012 election, and the Obama campaign is in full-on panic mode over the bad economy, so they’re releasing all kinds of misinformation, which is gobbled up by the press, who simply regurgitate it without a moment’s pause to question or analyze the “facts” and “figures” being presented.  And why should they?  Obama is their guy, and they would be thrilled to see him re-elected, so they’re happy to let the falsehoods stand when they report what they’re fed, and they have a million excuses at the ready if they’re ever called on it.  “This was a government report – we had reason to believe it”, or “those numbers were fluid – we just reported where they stood at that particular moment”.

The BS: In 2009, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. Our biggest banks and auto companies were on the brink of pulling down the whole economy. But we righted the ship. We did not tip into a Great Depression. And over the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs, the most since 2005 and more manufacturing jobs than since the 1990s. We still have a long way to go but we have restored hope and possibility to the economy.

This chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics utterly destroys that argument.  The BLS measures the percentage of working-age adults currently employed in the population — and as can easily be seen, three years of Barack Obama has not made any dent in the trough created by the recession:

That is not recovery.  It’s not even a start to a recovery.  By cherry-picking 22 months, the best Greenberg can claim is job growth of 136,370 jobs per month, which would barely exceed the needed job growth per month to keep up with population growth.

Why cherry-picking?  I explained the issue when Obama tried using this claim during his Google+ hangout at the beginning of the month:

But why 22 months?  Obama began his term in January 2009, and the recession ended in June 2009.   What’s so special about March 2010?  Well, not so surprisingly, that’s almost the nadir of employment during Obama’s presidency, which actually took place in February 2010, two years ago this month. Even if he’d picked the right month, it would still only have been 2.654 million, not 3 million.

Calculating from the end of the recession, the net job creation from those 31 months is only 1.407 million, a wan 45,390 net jobs a month, far below the pace needed to keep up with population growth.   Calculating for the entirety of his presidency, we’re actually in the hole 937,000 jobs.  Obama tried to cherry-pick the worst month in order to claim the most credit he could possible for job growth, and managed to get both the month and the math wrong anyway.

Obama and his strategists can cherry-pick all they like.  This chart tells the real story of Obamanomics and job creation during his term.

Good News: DHS Spending $11 Million Scouring Web for Criticism of Its Policies

I’d have loved to have heard the shrieks of indignation coming from The New York Times and the rest of the leftist infrastructure had John Ashcroft and other Bush administration officials engaged in this kind of egregious behavior.

No double standards here, folks.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been paying a defense contractor $11.4 million to monitor social media websites and other Internet communications to find criticisms of the department’s policies and actions.

A government watchdog organization, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), obtained hundreds of documents from DHS through the Freedom of Information Act and found details of the arrangement with General Dynamics. The company was contracted to monitor the Web for “reports that reflect adversely on DHS,” including sub-agencies like the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In testimony submitted to the House Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, Ginger McCall, director of EPIC’s Open Government Project, stated that “the agency is monitoring constantly, under very broad search terms, and is not limiting that monitoring to events or activities related to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, or manmade disasters…. The DHS has no legal authority to engage in this monitoring.”

McCall added: “This has a profound effect on free speech online if you feel like a government law enforcement agency—particularly the Department of Homeland Security, which is supposed to look for terrorists—is monitoring your criticism, your dissent, of the government.”

Rest assured that our beloved, baritone DHS secretary — and her ostensible boss, Eric “Fast ‘n’ Furious” Holder — would never, ever use this kind of information to go after private citizens. They’re just doing research.

As far as you know.

Consider this reason number 43,263 to kick this administration’s ample rear out of office in November.

PENNSYLVANIA JUDGE THROWS OUT ASSAULT CASE

An atheist annoyed a Muslim by using a Halloween costume of “zombie Mohammed” and the Muslim to beat the shit out the guy.

The charge goes to try and the Judge throws it out calling the atheist a “doofus”.

From Jonathan Turley:

There is a surprising story out of Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania that seems the perfect storm of religious tensions. You begin with Ernie Perce, an atheist who marched as a zombie Mohammad in the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. Then you add Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim who stepped off a curb and reportedly attacked Perce for insulting the Prophet. Then you have a judge (Judge Mark Martin) who threw out the criminal charges against Elbayomy and ridiculed the victim, Perce. The Judge identifies himself as a Muslim and says that Perce conduct is not what the First Amendment is supposed to protect. [UPDATE: The judge says he is not a Muslim despite what is heard by most listeners on the tape. That being the case, the criticism of the comments remains.] [UPDATE2: Perce has responded to our blog and denied many of the factual representations made by Judge Martin].

The judge not only points to the Koran in the courtroom but his time in Muslim countries as relevant to his deliberations. Putting aside the problem of ruling in a case where you admit you have strong personal feelings, the lecture given on the first amendment is perfectly grotesque from a civil liberties perspective.

The Judge: “Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in predominantly Muslim countries, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Quran here, and I would challenge you, Sir, to show me where it says in the Quran that Muhammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus. …

In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it could be punished by death, and frequently is, in their society.

Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures – which is what you did.

I don’t think you’re aware, Sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – I understand you’re an atheist – but see Islam is not just a religion. It’s their culture, their culture, their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day toward Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, unless you’re otherwise told you cannot because you’re too ill, too elderly, whatever, but you must make the attempt. Their greeting is ‘Salam alaikum, wa-laikum as-Salam,’ uh, ‘May God be with you.’

Whenever it is very common, their language, when they’re speaking to each other, it’s very common for them to say, uh, Allah willing, this will happen. It’s, they’re so immersed in it. And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim. I find it offensive. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights.

I’ve spent about seven years living in other countries. When we go to other countries, it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ‘ugly Americans.’ This is why we hear it referred to as ‘ugly Americans,’ because we’re so concerned about our own rights, we don’t care about other people’s rights. As long as we get our say, but we don’t care about the other people’s say.”

Burning the Flag anyone? Occupoopers pooping on the Flag anyone? Flag in a Jar of Urine anyone?

Hitler References, “racism” references by Liberals when you disagree with them.

No provocation there. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. –The Judge. 🙂

FREEDOM –DEMOCRAT STYLE

Democrat Kathy Hochul (via Guy Benson): I love the audible shock that ripples through the upstate New York crowd when their elected representative informs them that “the Congress” isn’t especially interested in what the Constitution has to say on certain “aspects” of its sundry decrees.  She goes on to pay lip service to religious freedom, suggesting that HHS’ extremely narrow exemptions to the mandate are sufficient.  Under this interpretation, the fact that “the decision has been made by this Congress than Americans are entitled to healthcare” renders conscience objections from religious institutions and individuals obsolete. 

From Here Campaign Website: Democrat Kathy Hochul dismissed being portrayed as a tax-and-spend liberal as “politics” and said she’s a pragmatist who is open to good ideas no matter which side of the political aisle they come from.

“You can’t label me anything,” Hochul said during a stop at The Daily News Thursday.

Sure…. 😦 Whatever….

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/25/video-dem-rep-booed-by-constituents-over-hhs-mandate/

“Well, basically, we’re not looking to the Constitution on that aspect of it.”- Rep Hochul

THE IRS & TEA PARTY

In January and February of this year, the Internal Revenue Service began sending out letters to various local Tea Parties across the country. Mailed from the same Cincinnati, Ohio IRS office, these letters have reached Tea Parties in Virginia, Hawaii, Ohio, and Texas (we are hearing of more daily). There are several common threads to these letters: all are requesting more information from these independent Tea Parties in regard to their nonprofit 501(c)(4) applications (for this type of nonprofit, donations are not deductible). While some of the requests are reasonable, much of them are strikingly onerous and, dare I say, Orwellian in nature.

The other question is the timing of these IRS letters requesting reams of copies and hundreds of hours of work and potentially thousands of dollars in accounting/legal fees (all due in two weeks). Some of these Tea Party groups have not received anything concerning their nonprofit status since 2010 prior to these letters.

In the near future, the Affordable Healthcare Act mandate and all things related to healthcare are to be policed and enforced by the IRS. This means thousands more IRS agents will be added, but the actual number is yet unknown. Considering that healthcare accounts for 1/6th of the U.S. economy, it will probably be a significant number of additional agents. According to the tax administration inspector general, Russell George, “The new Affordable Care Act provisions represents the largest set of tax law changes in 20 years.” That’s an overwhelming thought considering there are over 70,000 pages of federal tax code. (KFYI)

But I guess I’m just Cherry Picking… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

MOMMY!!!

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

Am I surprised that the Liberals went and found a Liberal judge in Wisconsin that would override the legislative process because THEY did not like the outcome?

No.

My initial reaction was, “why did it take so long?”.

Was judge-shopping that tough in Wisconsin?  I doubt it.

This is to be expected of Liberals.

The Rule of Law means absolutely nothing to them when they want what they want because they want it.

And that why they go running to mommy, Liberal activist Judges who will rule on the basis if their Liberalism not on the law, when all else fails.

That’s why Sen. Anthony “The Whiner” Weiner is so intent on gettin Justice Clarence Thomas thrown off the Supreme Court or at least recused from the inevitable Obamacare case so that he can tip the balance of the court in his favor.

So what if they are appointed for life and are supposed to be immune from politics.

It’s not like Liberals care. It’s all about THEM, after all!

So when I heard all the whining about it being “forced” on them all that crock all I could shout was “OBAMACARE!!”

But no Liberal was going to listen to that. They wanted that. They are very proud of cramming that down everyone’s throat “against the will of the people”.

And they are so arrogant as to believe it was the will of the people, because after all, the Tea Party and the over 60% disapproval of ObamaCare is not to be taken seriously.

They are just so much better than you. And they know what’s best for you, even if you don’t.

Isn’t that special? 😦

Running off to Illnois to try and halt the process didn’t work. So now they have to get a Liberal Activist Judge to do it for them.

Mind you the last time a Liberal complained about an activist judge was when that judge ruled against THEM.

That would be Judge Vinson, in Florida, when he ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional.

You can see how much that stopped the Obamacare freight train.

But now, they get their own activist judge and everything must grind to a halt.

After all, it’s all about THEM.

They are so vastly superior they are entitled to do, say, and legislate anything they want without impediments from the “stupid”. (that’s you and me by the way). 🙂

So expect more kicking and screaming and whining. It’s what Liberals do best.

The spoiled brat 2 year old’s have had their candy taken away and now it’s time for mommy to file a lawsuit to get those suckers and  Uncle Guido and his Union goons to break their kneecaps!

But don’t worry, it’s the rich who are greedy SOBs… 🙂

And all those millions of mandatory Union dues aren’t going straight to the Democrats so Democrats can send the largess straight back to the Unions.

Perish the Thought. 🙂

And as for Obama Care, the darling sweetheart Exorcist baby of the Liberal Left:

Today former Congressman Ernest Istook testified before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee about the $105 billion slush fund in advance appropriations liberals tucked inside Obamacare. The $105 billion bypasses the traditional yearly budgeting process and is spread throughout the 2,700 page legislation. It took the Congressional Research Service (CRS) seven months to identify all the disparate funds and it was not until February (11 months after the bill passed) that all of the funds could be totaled up.

It’s a bill that authorizes ahead of time it’s own appropriations. Is that special? 😦

And finally, just to let you know how much the Left cares…

A union protest will take place in Washington, D.C., but not to protest federal hypocrisy on the issue of union bargaining rights. It is set for April 4, the 43rd anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King as he was supporting striking sanitation workers in Memphis, Tenn. It will be a shameless attempt to wrap union greed in the mantle of the civil rights struggle.

“April 4 (is) the day on which Martin Luther King Jr. gave his life for the cause of public collective bargaining,” AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka said in a speech in Washington last Wednesday.

“Join us to make April 4, 2011, a day to stand in solidarity with working people in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and dozens of other states where well-funded, right-wing corporate politicians are trying to take away the rights Dr. King gave his life for.”

“Union rights are no different than civil rights,” Labor Secretary Hilda Solis told officials of the Communications Workers of America during a Wisconsin strategy conference call two weeks ago.(IBD)

And I bet they teach it that way in school, too.

Now, isn’t that precious… 😦

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Feeling The Heat

The only global warming going on is Liberals feeling the heat and squirming over it. And we need to turn it up!

The Ontario case of Baby Joseph (see “Future of ObamaCare” last Friday) has gotten very PR Political with the hospital trying to repair it’s image while NOT doing what the parents want. They propose a “compromise” and appear to be backing down but aren’t actually.

Much like ObamaCare, more on that in a moment.

The Ontario hospital at the centre of controversy surrounding baby Joseph Maraachli said Monday it has offered to let his parents take the terminally ill infant home to die.

But wait for it….

A day after London Health Sciences Centre announced it was launching a campaign to correct “false and misleading information” about the headline-grabbing case, the hospital issued a news release saying it has always been willing to transfer 13-month-old Joseph home and take him off life support there, while in the arms of his parents.

PR Blitz!!!

The hospital said it would pay for the medical transfer to the Maraachli home in Windsor, Ont., and Joseph would be accompanied by “LHSC physicians and staff.”

But Joseph’s dad, Moe Maraachli, said he and his wife have refused that offer and the family’s lawyer, Mark Handelman, said he was “surprised” to see the hospital’s public statement “given my understanding that the content of our discussions was to have been confidential.”

A spokeswoman for LHSC said the hospital just wanted to “clarify” its position.

AKA PR Spin. look like we “care” but not really…

Joseph’s parents are locked in a protracted battle with LHSC and the doctors who’ve cared for the baby there since last fall. The specialists believe it is in Joseph’s best interest to remove his breathing tube, since he suffers from a severe and fatal neurological disorder and cannot breathe on his own.

Joseph’s parents, however, want the doctors to perform a tracheotomy — cut open a direct airway in the baby’s throat — so they can have more time with him at home before he dies.

“I always said I want my son to die peacefully,” Maraachli said Monday. “I do not want him to die choking when the (breathing tube) is removed.”

The hospital stood firmly Monday by its decision not to perform a tracheotomy, saying it’s an invasive procedure and not part of palliative care.

LHSC said it contacted police and is considering legal action over “innuendo,” “untruths” and threats directed at the hospital, many of them from the United States. (canada.com)

So they are feeling the heat and are trying to weasel around get what they want but not look as heartless as they appear.

So we have ObamaCare.

Speaking to the National Governors Association at the White House today, President Barack Obama endorsed legislation by Mary Landreiu (D-LA) and Scott Brown (R-MA) that would allow states to request waivers from some Obamacare mandates in 2014 instead of the existing 2017 date. President Obama claimed: “It will give you flexibility more quickly while still guaranteeing the American people reform.”

The snake in The Garden of Liberal Eden hisses…. Trust in me! Trust in Me! 🙂

Has President Obama even read the legislation? Because that is just plan false. Heritage Foundation Center for Policy Innovation Director Stuart Butler explained in the New England Journal of Medicine:

One [problem] is that it still locks the states into guaranteeing a generous and costly level of benefits. True, a state could propose alternative benefit requirements if they had the same actuarial value as those in the ACA. But the requirements go well beyond basic coverage, and the HHS secretary is the one who defines “at least as comprehensive” benefits.

Another major problem with the bill is that since ultimate waiver authority rests with the HHS secretary, the waivers granted would probably reflect the administration’s preferences. Senator Wyden claims that his legislation would allow conservative states to opt out of much of the ACA and implement consumer-driven coverage. But he admits that the secretary, not the state, has the final word over what is permitted.

As long as the HHS Secretary, whether it is Kathleen Sebelius or the next occupant of the office, has the final say on granting Obamacare waivers, then there is no real flexibility for states under Obamacare. All 50 of them would still be at the mercy of the whim of the HHS. The only real way to give states true flexibility on health care reform begins with the full repeal of Obamacare.

[A] White House conference call with liberal allies this morning says the Administration is presenting it to Democrats as an opportunity to offer more expansive health care plans than the one Congress passed.

Health care advisers Nancy-Ann DeParle and Stephanie Cutter stressed on the off-record call that the rule change would allow states to implement single-payer health care plans — as Vermont seeks to — and true government-run plans, like Connecticut’s Sustinet.

The source on the call summarizes the officials’ point — which is not one the Administration has sought to make publically — as casting the new “flexibility” language as an opportunity to try more progressive, not less expansive, approaches on the state level.

“They are trying to split the baby here: on one hand tell supporters this is good for their pet issues, versus a message for the general public that the POTUS is responding to what he is hearing and that he is being sensible,” the source emails. (Foundry)

Splitting the baby to appear to give in, but not really. Fascinating.

As Gas price go past $4 what is Obama and Energy Secretary Chu doing about it?

Nothing.

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

A virtual regulatory ban continues today. At least 103 drilling permits await approval by a federal government that has not approved a single new permit since the moratorium was allegedly lifted last October.

The administration has announced that the eastern Gulf and the Atlantic and Pacific coasts will be off-limits for the next seven years. The Interior Department has canceled four pending lease sales in Alaska.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the oil industry hasn’t yet persuaded him to re-start deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and that he won’t “respond to political pressure” on the issue.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu has said that “any disruption in the Middle East means a partial disruption in the oil we import. It’s a world market, and (a disruption can) have real harm on the price.” And so, we would think, would the orchestrated and carefully planned disruption of domestic supply by this administration.

It’s not just Mideast turmoil that has brought us to this point. It’s also a deliberate program of restricting domestic energy to make so-called green energy more attractive and necessary, keeping an Obama campaign promise that energy prices would “necessarily skyrocket” on his energy agenda.

In September 2008, he told the Wall Street Journal: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Gas prices in Europe then averaged about $8 a gallon.

The administration’s hostility to fossil fuels is documented. Immediately on taking office, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled 77 leases for oil and gas drilling in Utah. Recently, in a stunning land grab, Salazar issued an order allowing Bureau of Land Management officials to place land with “wilderness characteristics” off-limits to energy development. Some 6 million acres in energy-rich Utah would be affected.

But Salazar now, not Chu, has issued 1 permit.

On Feb 2, The Obama Administration lost in court AGAIN, over there de facto moratorium on drilling.

Salazar was losing his battle in the court system at every turn. On Feb. 2, Judge Martin Feldman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, rebuked the administration for “determined disregard” of his previous June 2010 order to lift the moratorium.

In a separate ruling two weeks later, Feldman gave President Obama and Secretary Salazar 30 days to act on five pending permit applications. “[T]he government is under a duty to act by either granting or denying a permit application within a reasonable time,” said Feldman. “Not acting at all is not a lawful option.”

So they appeared to give in just a little. They do it kicking and screaming and whining like the children they are. But they are being forced to eat their vegetables.

Very Slowly.

Democrats once accused Big Oil of deliberately restricting supply to enrich itself. Now the Obama administration may be doing the same on purpose — a policy sure to impoverish us all. (IBD and DC)

But here’s the secret:

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn’t been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana ….. check THIS out:

“The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska ‘s Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable… at $107 a barrel, we’re looking at a resource base worth more than $5..3 trillion.

“This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years,” reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It’s aformation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the ‘Bakken.’ It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada .. For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the ‘Big Oil’ companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken’s massive reserves…. and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

But the “green” only Liberals in Washington don’t want you to know and don’t wanna do anything about it. It’s not on their agenda.

It’s all Wind farms, solar power and electric cars. Kumbuya!

simple hit counter
Bakken Shale Map
bakkenshalemap.jpg

“Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies thelargest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels.(las cruces connection)

Also see: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

The Bakken Formation estimate is larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest “continuous” oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS. A “continuous” oil accumulation means that the oil resource is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences. The next largest “continuous” oil accumulation in the U.S. is in the Austin Chalk of Texas and Louisiana, with an undiscovered estimate of 1.0 billions of barrels of technically recoverable oil. (USGS)

“HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy…..WHY?

Enviromentalists, leftists, and the current “green” administration!!

Because Oil and Oil companies are Evil!!  They are the work of the Devil Incarnate. The only way to cut our dependence on foreign oil is by “green” energy that is vastly more expensive, inefficient and not technologically ready for the mass market.

But it makes the Liberals feel good! All warm and fuzzy. So that’s all they can see.

So let’s let Ideology blind us because the Agenda is the Agenda.

But they are feeling some heat.

So we just have to turn it up! Way up!

The Fires of Perdition itself must be lit under the feet of Liberals or else they will consume the rest of us with them.

Period.

Political Cartoons by Brian Farrington

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

We The People

It has often been a theme in my blog for this nearly first year about the dishonesty of this administration, the Orwellian Tactics, and the Alinsky maneuvers. How the dripping contempt for the ‘little people’ from the political Elite Class has boiled over and how the Ministry of Truth (The Mainstream Media) is both a partner, a sucker, and a toadie for it all.

How the Left like to define everything in their own terms and you aren’t allowed to disagree with them.

Leaving you and me, the average citizen, hung out to dry.

Now Thomas Sowell, a evil abomination that liberals don’t want to exist – a black Conservative- a great piece today.

‘We the people” are the central concern of the Constitution, as well as its opening words, since it is a Constitution for a self-governing nation. But “we the people” are treated as an obstacle to circumvent by the current administration.

One way of circumventing the people is to rush legislation through Congress so fast that no one knows what is buried in it. Did you know that the so-called health care reform bill contained a provision creating a tax on people who buy and sell gold coins?

You might debate whether that tax is a good or a bad idea. But the whole point of burying it in legislation about medical insurance is to make sure “we the people” don’t even know about it, much less have a chance to debate it, before it becomes law.

Did you know that the financial reform bill that’s been similarly rushed through Congress, too fast for anyone to read, has a provision about “inclusion” of women and minorities? Pretty words like “inclusion” mean ugly realities like quotas. But that too isn’t something “we the people” are to be allowed to debate, because it too was sneaked through.

Not since the Norman conquerors of England published their laws in French, for an English-speaking nation, centuries ago, has there been such contempt for the people’s right to know what laws were being imposed on them.

Yet another ploy is to pass laws worded in vague generalities, leaving it up to the federal bureaucracies to issue specific regulations based on those laws. “We the people” can’t vote on bureaucrats. And, since it takes time for all the bureaucratic rules to be formulated and then put into practice, we won’t know what either the rules or their effects are prior to this fall’s elections when we vote for (or against) those who passed these clever laws.

The biggest circumvention of “we the people” was of course the so-called “health care reform” bill. This bill was passed with the proviso that it would not really take effect until after the 2012 presidential elections. Between now and then, the Obama administration can tell us in glowing words how wonderful this bill is, what good things it will do for us, and how it has rescued us from the evil insurance companies, among its many other glories.

But we won’t really know what the actual effects of this bill are until after the next presidential elections — which is to say, after it is too late. Quite simply, we are being played for fools.

Much has been made of the fact that families making less than $250,000 a year will not see their taxes raised. Of course they won’t see it, because what they see could affect how they vote. But when huge tax increases are put on electric utility companies, the people will see electricity bills go up. When huge taxes are put on other businesses as well, they will see the prices of the things those businesses sell go up.

If you are not in that “rich” category, you will not see your own taxes go up. But you will be paying someone else’s higher taxes, unless of course you can do without electricity and other products of heavily taxed businesses. If you don’t see this, so much the better for the administration politically.

This country has been changed in a more profound way by corrupting its fundamental values. The Obama administration has begun bribing people with the promise of getting their medical care and other benefits paid for by other people, so long as those other people can be called “the rich.” Incidentally, most of those who are called “the rich” are nowhere close to being rich.

A couple making $125,000 a year each are not rich, even though together they reach that magic $250,000 income level. In most cases, they haven’t been making $125,000 a year all their working lives. Far more often, they have reached this level after decades of working their way up from lower incomes — and now the government steps in to grab the reward they have earned over the years.

There was a time when most Americans would have resented the suggestion that they wanted someone else to pay their bills. But now, envy and resentment have been cultivated to the point where even people who contribute nothing to society feel that they have a right to a “fair share” of what others have produced.

The most dangerous corruption is a corruption of a nation’s soul. That is what this administration is doing.

I would add in the socialist corruption of the Education process so that even if they can’t destroy you they can destroy the future and the little darling brains full of mush will never know because they will never tell them.

It starts in grade school where you just don’t mention certain things, events and concepts and moves on through college life. So that by the end of 16 years of “education” you’re effectively a mindless idiot willing do what the government says because “it’s fair” and “it’s sensitive”.

And you wouldn’t want to be “unfair” and “insensitive” now would you? 🙂

A central goal of these programs is to uproot “internalized oppression,” a crucial concept in the diversity education planning documents of most universities. Like the Leninists’ notion of “false consciousness,” from which it ultimately is derived, it identifies as a major barrier to progressive change the fact that the victims of oppression have internalized the very values and ways of thinking by which society oppresses them. What could workers possibly know, compared to intellectuals, about what workers truly should want? What could students possibly know, compared to those creating programs for offices of student life and residence, about what students truly should feel? Any desire for assimilation or for individualism reflects the imprint of white America’s strategy for racial hegemony.

Planning for New Student Week at Northwestern University, a member of the Cultural Diversity Project Committee explained to the Weekly Northwestern Review in 1989 that the committee’s goal was “changing the world, or at least the way [undergraduates] perceive it.” In 1993, Ana Maria Garcia, assistant dean of Haverford College, proudly told the Philadelphia Inquirer of official freshman dormitory programs there, which divided students into two groups: happy, unselfish Alphas and grim, acquisitive Betas. For Garcia, the exercise was wonderfully successful: “Students in both groups said the game made them feel excluded, confused, awkward, and foolish,” which, for Garcia, accomplished the purpose of Haverford’s program: “to raise student awareness of racial and ethnic diversity.”

In the early 1990s, Bryn Mawr College shared its mandatory “Building Pluralism” program with any school that requested it. Bryn Mawr probed the most private experiences of every first-year student: difference and discomfort; racial, ethnic, and class experiences; sexual orientation; religious beliefs. By the end of this “orientation,” students were devising “individual and collective action plans” for “breaking free” of “the cycle of oppression” and for achieving “new meaning” as “change agents.” Although the public relations savvy of universities has changed since the early 1990s, these programs proliferate apace.

The darkest nightmare of the literature on power is George Orwell’s 1984, where there is not even an interior space of privacy and self. Winston Smith faces the ultimate and consistent logic of the argument that everything is political, and he can only dream of “a time when there were still privacy, love, and friendship, and when members of a family stood by one another without needing to know the reason.”(reason.com)

Let’s take that a step farther. The liberal left says that you are “insensitive” to muslims if you object to the mosque being built next to Ground Zero.

But you also “insensitive” to Latinos if you want the border secured. That’s “racial profiling”. You’re a “racist”.

But yet, if you’re a devout Christian who doesn’t believe in Gay marriage, because of your religion, You’re an insensitive, homophobic bigot!

So you’re insensitive to the Muslim religion if you object, but if you object based on your Christian religion you’re also insensitive.

And if you tell the proponents of the mosque that building it there is “insensitive” they will shoot back that you’re stereotyping all Muslims and that the Constitution protects there right to build it there.

So they can tell you you’re “insensitive” but you can’t tell THEM they are “insensitive” because they are your Insufferably Moral Superiors and you can’t even begin to judge them.

Orwell couldn’t do much better than that. You’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.

O’Brien’s re-education of Winston in 1984 went to the heart of such invasiveness. “We are not content with negative obedience…. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will.” The Party wanted not to destroy the heretic but to “capture his inner mind.” Where others were content to command “Thou shalt not” or “Thou shalt,” O’Brien explains, “Our command is ‘Thou art.'” To reach that end requires “learning… understanding [and] acceptance,” and the realization that one has no control even over one’s inner soul.

The school must become a therapeutic and political agent of progressive change. For your own good. But especially, before you figure out you’ve been had.

And the liberal media is there to reinforce it.

Look at how they frame the Ground Zero Mosque issue, for instance.

It’s all about Constitutional Right to worship as they please. The fact that this is a perversion of the First Amendment aside, it’s a clever little Alinsky tactic. Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

So you wouldn’t want to go against The Constitution now would you? 🙂

The fact that that isn’t even the real issue isn’t even the point. It’s a tactic. They don’t care about the Constitutionality of it. They know that’s irrelevant.

But they also know they can off-put you by pushing it. Just like when they call you a “racist” when you object to illegal immigration.

And if that’s the only argument you hear, then that’s they only argument you know.

If the free speech and religious freedoms protected in First Amendment are suddenly so sacrosanct, why is it that Obama and his left-wing allies continuously push for a return of the fairness doctrine and for getting religion (except islam) out of schools and everywhere else??

And if the Constitution is so all important to Liberals all of the sudden why do they continuously push for gun bans (aka The Second Amendment)?

And where in the Constitution does a Health Care Mandate come from? And what other Mandates can they come up with if they think there is??

And then you get the counter. It’s not the Imam and the Mosque next to Ground Zero that is the problem, it’s YOU who object to it, you’re the problem.

Speaker Pelosi on a radio show: “There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” she said. “How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we’ve been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City.”

Calls to investigate the funding for those proposing the $100 million “Cordoba House” have fallen on deaf ears, though, as New York’s Mayor Mike Bloomberg has described such an investigation as “un-American.”(Washington Times)

The only thing the majority of American opposed to this haven’t been called yet is…. RACIST! 🙂

But I’m sure it’s coming. It’s always coming…

And have you noticed, the proposed memorial to the victims of 9/11 hasn’t been finished 10 years later?

And a Greek Orthodox church crushed by the twin towers falling can’t get the zoning and building permits to rebuild?

Funny that. 🙂

And the final word today goes to former Obama Communication toadie Anita Dunn on MSDNC when challenged by Pat Buchanan on “tolerance”,“Anita, let me ask you about this word tolerance. I mean, what about tolerance for the views of the thousands of families of those who died on 9/11, the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who are saying, ‘Please, you have a right to move the mosque there but please don’t do it. It doesn’t belong there,’ and the vast majority of Americans who say the same thing?” Buchanan said.

“They have a right to build a mosque, but for heavens’ sakes given the fact that the terrorists were Islamic, it was crucial to their identity and their mission, please don’t put an Islamic mosque just two blocks from where this happened. What about tolerance for the vast majority of Americans and their opinions?” he said.

Dunn responded: “Well, you know, I have to ask, it’s two blocks … It’s a center that is supposed to be about promoting interfaith, and really reaching out, which in many ways is I think what President Bush back in those horrible days of 2001, really tried to promote.”

“And how many blocks is ok? Is nine blocks okay? Is 10? I don’t know where you go with this argument,” Dunn said.

“Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski ended the segment with a non-sequitur.

“And Anita, they have, like, other things that a lot of people have issues with, like peep shows. So, I mean, I think you bring up a really good point,” Brzezinski said.

Last impression: it’s about peep shows, not “sensitivity”.

Doing Orwell proud. 🙂