For The Children

“Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners,” says this APA (American Psychological Association) policy statement the administration cited to the court. “The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers’ and gay fathers’ parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

Our Agenda is superior to all of human history, not to brag or anything… 🙂

“Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents,” says the APA policy statement. “However, few data regarding these concerns are available for children of gay fathers.”

So far in the history of the human race, no child has ever been born without a biological father and mother. Now, in the Supreme Court of the United States, the Executive Branch of the federal government is arguing that, regardless of the biological facts of parenthood, states have no legitimate and defenisble interest in ensuring that children conceived by a mother and a father are in fact raised by mothers and fathers.

The brief that the Justice Department presented to the Supreme Court discussed children only as items controlled by others, not as individual human beings who have God-given rights of their own. It simply assumes that a child has no inherent right to a mother or father and that the only right truly in question is whether two people of the same-sex have a right to marry one another and that that right encompasses a right to adopt and foster-raise children.

To take this view and be consistent with the principles of the Declaration of Independence—which recognizes the ultimate authority of the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” and says that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”—the Obama Justice Department must advance the assumption that natural law and Nature’s God give children no right to a mother and father and no right not to be legally handed over by the government to be raised by same-sex couples. (CNS)

After all, there’s is the superior Agenda and anything else just makes you a BIGOT.

The Government is The Parent of all who live under it’s roof. It provides all. You must bow down to it. It is supreme.

Children are props for the future of The Agenda. They are to be raised to praise The Agenda. To never question The Agenda. To never even conceive of questioning the Agenda And to be repelled by the very notion of rebellion against The Agenda.

In 1984 the party is constantly brainwashing the people of Oceania (America) . They are trying to make them believe that the party is wonderful, that Big Brother is amazing and that everyone should love, and be loyal, only to the party. The way the party brainwashes people is quite effective. They start young, the spies, the youth leagues, these are all ways for them to get to children, to get them on their side, to turn them into obedient little party members. The Spies reminds me a great deal of the Hitler Youth. They have the same philosophy, grab them when they’re young and impressionable, and then stuff them so full of propaganda that they believe what ever you tell them.

You see the effects of this childhood brainwashing in Julia. She has been subjected to the party’s propaganda all of her life and in some ways she is far more immune to it than Winston, but in other ways she believes just what they want her to. Julia says that if you follow the important rules, go to the rallies and marches and such, you can break the little rules without worrying too much. Winston on the other hand, before he met Julia, would just as soon skip his evening at the community centre as go and be an obedient party member. However Julia doesn’t seem to have a problem with the way the party changes the past. How really there is no concrete past only a constantly changing present. She seems to think it is inevitable and nothing particularly important, where as Winston is terrified by it.

There are other reasons for having organizations like the spies. When the party gathers children into groups like the spies they are creating a network of miniature thought police. Once they have been taught to believe the party knows all they are no longer loyal to anyone but them. Children will willingly denounce their family members to the thought police. That is the ultimate horror to have your own children betray you.(1984 Blog spot)

“Nearly all children nowadays were horrible. What was worst of all was that by means of such organizations as the Spies they were systematically turned into ungovernable little savages, and yet this produced in them no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the Party. On the contrary, they adored the Party and everything connected with it… All their ferocity was turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals. It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children.”
― George Orwell, 1984

For they are “tolerant”, “diverse” Liberals who just want “equality” for all. As long as you do and think EXACTLY what they want you to do and to think, that is. 🙂

Agree with me or else!

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Sowell Decisons

Many people are looking at the recent Supreme Court decisions about ObamaCare and same-sex marriage in terms of whether they think these are good or bad policies. That is certainly a legitimate concern, for both those who favor those policies and those who oppose them.

But there is a deeper and more long-lasting impact of these decisions that raises the question whether we are still living in America, where “we the people” are supposed to decide what kind of society we want, not have our betters impose their notions on us.

The Constitution of the U.S. says that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution — and that all other powers belong either to the states or to the people themselves.

That is the foundation of our freedom, and that is what is being dismantled by both 2012’s and this year’s ObamaCare decisions, as well as by the Supreme Court’s decision imposing a redefinition of marriage.

The 2012 Supreme Court decision declaring ObamaCare constitutional says that the federal government can order individual citizens to buy the kind of insurance the government wants them to buy, regardless of what the citizens themselves prefer.

The Constitution gave the federal government no such power, but the Supreme Court did. It did so by citing the government’s power to tax, even though the ObamaCare law did not claim to be taxing.

This year’s ObamaCare decision likewise ignored the law’s actual words, and decided the decisions of 34 states not to participate in ObamaCare exchanges, even to get federal subsidies, would not prevent those subsidies to be paid anyway to exchanges set up by the federal government itself.

When any branch of government can exercise powers not authorized by either statutes or the Constitution, “we the people” are no longer free citizens but subjects, and our “public servants” are really our public masters. And America is no longer America. The freedom for which whole generations of Americans have fought and died is gradually but increasingly being taken away from us with smooth and slippery words.

This decision makes next year’s choice of the next U.S. president more crucial than ever, because with that office goes the power to nominate justices of the Supreme Court. Democrats have consistently nominated people who shared their social vision and imposed their policy preferences, too often in disregard of the Constitution.

Republicans have complained about it but, when the power of judicial appointment was in the hands of Republican presidents, they have too often appointed justices who participated in the dismantling of the Constitution — and usually for the kinds of social policies preferred by Democrats.

Chief justices appointed by Republicans have made landmark decisions for which there was neither constitutional authority nor either evidence or logic. The first was Earl Warren.

When Chief Justice Warren said that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” he was within walking distance of an all-black public high school that sent a higher percentage of its graduates on to college than any white public high school in Washington. As far back as 1899, that school’s students scored higher on tests than two of the city’s three white academic public high schools.

Nevertheless, Warren’s unsubstantiated assumption led to years of school busing across the country that was as racially divisive as it was educationally futile.

Chief Justice Warren Burger, also appointed by a Republican president, gave us the “disparate impact” notion that statistical disparities imply discrimination. That notion has created a whole statistical shakedown racket, practiced by government itself and by private race hustlers alike.

And now Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, gives the federal government the power to order us to buy whatever insurance it wants us to buy. With that entering wedge, is there anything they cannot force us to do, regardless of the Constitution?

Can the Republicans — or the country — afford to put another mushy moderate in the White House, who can appoint more mushy moderates to the Supreme Court?

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?

Move Forward

Well, now that the Gay Mafia has the Federal Government’s stamp of approval to destroy anyone who gets in their way I think we should turn it up a notch on them.

Polyamory.

Where Multiple Men (or Women) can have multiple wives.

If the definition of marriage that has existed for 10,000 years is on the trash heap of Political Correctness and no longer valid, then is the 1 person and 1 person definition not the next logical step in this ridiculous arms race of hedonism and narcissism?

If marriage is solely the purview of “love” and “commitment” then why is 1 on 1 a limitation? The line we won’t cross.

If 6 guys and 15 women want to be “married” to each other why not allow it?

If a 14 year old wants to marry a 30 year old out of “love and “commitment” is it discrimination to deny them the tenet of marriage?

You broke the tenet of 10,000 years of history so why stop there?

If I want to marry my cat, is it discrimination to prohibit it?

There are no limits, or limitations now.

So I say, we need to start a campaign to legalize Polyamory and Polygamy because anything would be “discrimination”.

Wouldn’t it? 🙂

“If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,”  Justice Roberts wrote.

It was about “equality”. So why is polyamory not legal then?

Is “discrimination” ok if it’s not on your ideological agenda?

And there will be no “equality” anyhow. The Leftist control freaks will see to that. But they set the standard that marriage is not strictly defined as it has been for millenia, so who is the number of men and women restricted?

Why can’t I have 15 wives if I and they choose to? Why would I be “discriminated” against? You’re just a “bigot” if you don’t allow it.

Being a single-minded ideologically zealot does have it’s consequences.

Time they paid up.

The game is afoot…

The editorial board of PennLive/The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa. is taking a hardcore stance against those who disagree with the Supreme Court ruling to legalize gay marriage.

“As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage,” they declared. 

After receiving strong pushback, the newspaper’s editorial board, which is overseen by Editorial Page Editor John Micek, quickly revised its policy. Freedom of speech will be allowed — but only for a “limited” period of time.

Remember what I said about freedom of speech yesterday…. 🙂

The Supreme Court and the American people at the polls in 2016 need to decide whether this country will respect their First Amendment rights, including their fundamental right to dissent.

Judge Alito shares this anxiety. “Today’s decision … will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,” he writes. In particular, he objects to the comparison between bans on same-sex marriage and the bans on interracial marriage that were widespread before the Court overturned them in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. “The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent,” he argues.

The Holy Warriors of The Left are far from done with you!

Opposition to their Ideology will not be permitted.

In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.

 To the past or to the future, to an age when thought is free, from the Age of Big Brother, from the Age of the Thought Police, from a dead man — greetings!- Orwell

Welcome to the Age of Big Brother!

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

 

Evolved

Madame Doublespeak is at it again: Nancy Pelosi: My Catholic Faith “Compels Me” to Support Same-Sex Marriage.

Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words.

Doublethink: The capacity to believe two contradictory things at the same time and believe both are true.

Or is it just more Liberal Political BS where they will say ANYTHING to be “correct” and hip 100% of the time no matter what regardless and if they actually believe it or not.

You Decide.

After all, Obama raised $15 million from Hollywood Liberals because he was the First Gay President! 🙂

Anchor Diane Sawyer enthused, “Well, as we said this is a historic cultural and political event in this country.

Just like the First Black President!! Can you feel the tingle up your leg?

If a Conservative says they are for Man-Woman Marriage only they are homophobic, narrow-minded bigots and right wing crazies.

Catholics are mean-spirited haters of Women. Mormons are “cultists”.

But if a Liberal who was against it, now says (for political reasons) that they are for it they have “evolved”.  You know it was politics with Obama when it came out later that he was planning to announce this closer to the convention to get the “bump” but a radical Gay Right Group forced Biden’s hand and  Obama just wanted the money.

So if you’re a Conservative you “de-volve” if you have convictions. And Liberals “evolve” when they contradict everything they say.

Now, Conservatives are Neandertals. And Liberals are Homo Superiors.

And the liberal media is all a flutter and flush with pride over it. Fascinating how this works.

******

Mexican authorities found at least 49 decapitated and dismembered bodies along a highway in a northern border state Sunday morning, officials said.

The remains were found in the municipality of Cadereyta Jimenez, near the industrial city of Monterrey and about 80 miles southwest of the U.S. border, police said.(CNN)

But don’t worry, nothing to see here. Nothing to worry about the “more secure than ever” border. And these people never come here.

Oh, and then there’s Fast & Furious…

http://www.kfyi.com/pages/jimsharpe.html?article=10120969

DENVER—A federal appeals court says illegal immigrants don’t have a right to own firearms under the U.S. Constitution.

Emmanuel Huitron-Guizar of Wyoming pleaded guilty to being an illegal immigrant in possession of firearms after his arrest last year. He was ordered held by immigration authorities at the Natrona County Detention Center in Wyoming.

An attorney for Huitron-Guizar appealed the case, saying illegal immigrants are not excluded from possessing firearms like felons and people who are mentally ill, and should have the same rights as U.S. citizens to buy a gun for hunting and protection.

The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver ruled Monday that illegal immigrants have only limited protection under the Constitution. Huitron-Guizar’s attorney, Ronald Pretty of Cheyenne, Wyo., says he plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. (KFYI)

********

Remember how candidate Barack Obama complained in 2008 that any discussion not involving the economy was a “distraction”? This time, his entire campaign is built on distracting voters from the economy.

During his 2008 campaign, one of Obama’s favorite words was “distraction.” He constantly plugged it into his speeches and interviews to dismiss any controversy that might have erupted, or an issue he didn’t particularly want to talk about.

Questions about how Obama could have sat in the pews and listened to Rev. Wright’s anti-American, race-baiting screeds for years? Distraction. Questions about his relationship with radical Bill Ayers? Distraction. Questions about his qualifications to be president? Distraction.

Typically, Obama would follow up by talking about how we need to focus instead on “the real issues.” Here’s just a small sampling of Obama quotes:

• “You could see race bubbling up in a way that was distracting from the issues that I think are so important to America right now.” March 2008

• “We knew that the closer we got to the change we seek, the more we’d see of the politics we’re trying to end — the attacks and distortions that try to distract us from the issues that matter.” March 2008

• “It’s easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit for tat that consumes our politics.” April 2008

• ” Yes, we know what’s coming. … The same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy in the hope that the media will play along.” May 2008

• “When we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people.” July 2008

• “Sen. McCain and his operatives are gambling that he can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance. … I’m going to keep talking about the issues that matter — about the economy and health care and education and energy.”  October 2008

Obama even used the distraction gambit to challenge actual policies.

In 2002, for example, in his speech against the Iraq war, Obama said it was just an “attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income.”

He even complained about the entire gay marriage issue in his “Audacity of Hope” book, saying that “the heightened focus on marriage is a distraction from other, attainable measures to prevent discrimination of gays and lesbians.”

Of course, the media dutifully played along, challenging any Republican who brought any of this up as trying to distract the public from the important issues.

But now that Obama has to defend his record on the issues he claimed were the only ones the mattered — jobs, energy, health care — he has nothing to offer but distractions.

He goes on “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon” to distract the public for a while with his alleged coolness. He jets to Afghanistan to distract the country with boasts about how he courageously ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden. Then he tries to distract the public again by shifting his position on gay marriage for the fifth time.

And, naturally, the media gladly fall in line, running 5,000-word pieces on Romney’s high school days, for just one current example, as if that’s what Americans actually care about.

Does Obama, or his friends in the media, really think he’ll have enough material to keep the public distracted from his utter failure as a president all the way to November? (IBD)

But pointing this out is just a “partisan” distraction from how wonderful Obama is and how “evolved” he is! 🙂