9/11 Is On Us Once Again...

Thursday is the 13th anniversary of that terrible attack on the United States by Islamic terrorists. Yes, I said it. Islamic terrorists. Muslim extremists. They're not unnamed militants. They're Muslims. I don't say that out of hatred. I say it because it's simple truth. I don't care how our government officials try to disguise it - they're Muslims. Plain and simple.

As much as I hate to say it, and as much as I hope I'm wrong, I have a bad feeling about the anniversary this year. Reports and rumors are rampant about the possibility of Islamic extremists carrying out another attack this year. Communications have been intercepted that express their desire to attack shopping malls or sports arenas - places where the concentration of innocent people will be the highest. And they're already here. I think it's very possible something big is going to happen on or around Thursday.

It is believed that a large ISIS cell is currently in Juarez, Mexico, across the river from El Paso. The web page Judicial Watch quotes federal sources as saying "a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued. Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat."

"Intelligence officials have picked up radio talk and chatter indicating that the terrorist groups are going to “carry out an attack on the border,” according to one JW source. “It’s coming very soon,” according to another high-level source, who clearly identified the groups planning the plots as “ISIS and Al Qaeda.” An attack is so imminent that the commanding general at Ft. Bliss, the U.S. Army post in El Paso, is being briefed, JW’s sources say."

Judicial Watch has stated that two days after they released their article Fort Bliss went on high alert.

We know there are Islamic terrorists in the country today. And it's not hard to figure out that since the border with Mexico has been wide open for about six months, we now have far more than we did. Anyone who believes terrorists did not cross the border during the last six months is naive. And if government officials say it didn't happen - they're lying.

My point is this. All Americans should be vigilant over the next week or so - more vigilant than usual. Be prepared for the worst case scenario - particularly in large cities. Some have suggested not to go out on 9/11, not to go to work in large buildings, stay completely away from federal buildings and malls. I disagree with that. Terrorists are going to find a target, regardless. If we hide in our homes on the anniversaries of 9/11 - the terrorists have won a victory. Remember the goal of terrorism - to strike fear in the hearts of people through horrific acts of violence.

Do yourselves a favor and get a few things ready, just in case. Again - the cities are more likely to get hit than rural areas and small towns, since terrorists go for big body counts. But be prepared. Extra water. Flashlights and batteries. Non-perishable foods. (There is evidence that trial-runs have been executed on water and power supplies to see if they could be compromised.)

If you're licensed to carry a firearm I would suggest that you carry it for the next week or so, if you aren't already. Be vigilant. Be prepared. We know Islamic terrorists are going to attack - we just don't know when. But since 9/11 is a holiday to them, because of the successful attacks in 2001 and the successful attack on our consulate in Benghazi on 9/11/2002, it is likely that another major attack will come on Thursday.

I could be very wrong about this and truly hope I am. But I'm not the only one who feels this way and I'd rather be safe, and warn others, than stay silent and be sorry later. Stay safe, everyone - and know what's going on around you.

Let's Raise The Minimum Wage... And Everything Else

Thousands of fast food workers went on strike across the country this week demanding that the minimum wage be raised to $15 an hour. Some people support the raise while others see the consequences of such an act and believe it's a bad idea. Let's take a look at it.

According to Forbes Magazine, any raise in the minimum wage over about 45% of the current minimum wage, whether it's the federal minimum of $7.25 or the higher minimum paid by some states, will cause job loss. The higher the percentage over 45%, the higher the number of jobs lost, according to Forbes.

The minimum wage in Seattle was raised by 60 % of the previous minimum wage set by the state. Forbes predicts that teenagers, particularly high school graduates, will be the first to feel the effects of the job losses as businesses will be more likely to hire an unemployed college graduate over a high school graduate when both are willing to work for the same pay.

What other consequences could there be? The following is an example published in an article by Forbes:

'While attending an event at a SeaTac hotel last week, I met two women who receive the $15/hour minimum wage. SeaTac has implemented the new law on Jan. 1. I met the women while they were working. One was a waitress and the other was cleaning the hallway.

“Are you happy with the $15 wage?” I asked the full-time cleaning lady.

“It sounds good, but it’s not good,” the woman said.

“Why?” I asked.

“I lost my 401k, health insurance, paid holiday, and vacation,” she responded. “No more free food,” she added.

The hotel used to feed her. Now, she has to bring her own food. Also, no overtime, she said. She used to work extra hours and received overtime pay.

What else? I asked.

“I have to pay for parking,” she said.

I then asked the part-time waitress, who was part of the catering staff.

“Yes, I’ve got $15 an hour, but all my tips are now much less,” she said. 

Before the new wage law was implemented, her hourly wage was $7. But her tips added to more than $15 an hour. Yes, she used to receive free food and parking. Now, she has to bring her own food and pay for parking.'

Some will scream about corporate greed but let us not forget that all businesses, from small mom and pop stores to large corporations, were started for the purpose of making a profit by providing goods and services to the public. I don't know any business owner who one day decided to open a business just so he/she could employ others. I suppose it's possible but I've never heard of it. For all its claims about creating jobs for people by improving America's infrastructure, the Obama administration hasn't done it either.

Some will say a business or corporation doesn't need to make millions or billions of dollars in profit and that such profits are evil and/or immoral, etc. They vilify corporate profit and corporate greed. Yet, as we saw during the "Occupy Wall Street" movement - many of those same people have no problem purchasing and utilizing items such as iPhones and iPads, made and sold by a corporation that's worth $185 billion. It seems corporate profit and greed is evil unless that corporation makes a product you like and want to own.

According to research by the Heritage Foundation, an increase in minimum wages forced on fast food restaurants will raise the consumer prices of their goods by 38%. Your Big Mac meal will go from an average of $5.69 to $7.82. Chipotle's Steak Burrito Bowl will go from $6.65 to $9.18. Burger King's Whopper meal will go from $6.15 to $8.46. Get the picture?

The thing some people either don't or refuse to understand is that if you raise the minimum wage too much it causes consumer prices to go up, thus negating the raise. How hard is that to understand?

I know some liberals who will say "I will be happy to pay the higher prices so the employees can earn a decent wage." These are the same liberals who say they would be happy to pay more taxes to help the government increase revenue - but when you tell them they can do that on their own they refuse, saying "I won't just give my money away to the government."  Wait...  huh?

Several years ago I worked for a couple of ladies who owned a small bakery/bistro in Ohio. They both worked full time in the store and had four part-time employees who they could only pay minimum wage because they weren't making a huge profit. In fact - there were times when they didn't take paychecks themselves so they could pay their employees. They enjoyed the business and were great to work for. I took the job for some extra cash and for something to do, and stayed because I enjoyed their friendship. 

My point is - a huge raise in the minimum wage would put these ladies out of business. They wouldn't be able to run the business by themselves 7 days a week and a 100% raise of the minimum wage would put at least two of their employees out of a job. This is progress?

Those pushing the $15 an hour minimum wage are thinking only of themselves - but they're not really because they might be pushing themselves right out work. Corporations are always going to make a profit. That's what they do. The government, at least so far, does not have the authority to regulate the salaries of CEOs, nor should they. That's not part of their responsibility. And even though our millionaire President says "At some point you've made enough money," while his own bank account continues to grow, successful corporations will continue to pay their CEO's for that success. That's how the free market works.

I support raising the minimum wage by a small percentage - one that won't create job loss and drive small businesses out of business. But you know what? People who work in the fast food industry, whose skills amount to flipping burgers properly, dropping fries into the oil and taking them out when the timer goes off, and throwing sandwiches together on an assembly line, don't deserve the same wages as someone who does physical labor, has a marketable skill or certification, and/or took a minimum wage job and worked his/her way up. 

Here's some advice...  want a better paying job? Get an education or vocational training and make yourself marketable. Train yourself to be something other than an entry-level worker. There are jobs out there for people with education, training and/or marketable skills. Pick one and work toward it.

John Kerry: "Islam Is A Peaceful Religion Based On The Dignity Of All Human Beings"

Wait...  huh? Did he really say that?

Secretary of State John Kerry, in his usual ignorant manner, told the American people on Wednesday that Islam is a religion of peace - just one day after Americans watched the beheading of American journalist Steven Sotloff. Kerry spoke at a ceremony honoring Shaarik Zafar, who was just appointed as the State Department's special representative to Muslim communities.

We have a new special State Department representative to Muslim communities. How nice. I wonder if he is friends with the Imam who was appointed by Barack Obama to teach the FBI how to properly do their jobs in the counter terrorism field without the inclusion of the words "Islam", "Islamic terrorists," and "jihad." All such words have now been eliminated from the FBI training manuals.

The Justice Department for several years has listed the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), as participants in an alleged criminal conspiracy to support a Palestinian Arab terrorist group, Hamas. Yet all three continue to be advisers to the President and are deeply rooted in the Obama administration. And Obama, Kerry, and other prominent Democrats continue to tell themselves and us about Islam being "a religion of peace."

“I want to take advantage of this podium and of this moment to underscore as powerfully as I know how, that the face of Islam is not the butchers who killed Steven Sotloff. That’s ISIL,” Kerry said.

“The face of Islam is not the nihilists who know only how to destroy, not to build,” he said. “It’s not masked cowards whose actions are an ugly insult to the peaceful religion that they violate every single day with their barbarity and whose fundamental principles they insult with their actions.”

“The real face of Islam is a peaceful religion based on the dignity of all human beings,” Kerry said. “It’s one where Muslim communities are leading the fight against poverty. It’s one where Muslim communities are providing basic healthcare and emergency assistance on the front lines of some of our most devastating humanitarian crises. And it is one where Muslim communities are advocating for universal human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the most basic freedom to practice one’s faith openly and freely.

“America’s faith communities, including American Muslims, are sources of strength for all of us. They’re an essential part of our national fabric, and we are committed to deepening our partnerships with them,” Kerry added.

Kerry condemned Sotloff's murder, as well as the killing of American journalist James Foley in July. As with Sotloff's murder, ISIS filmed Foley’s beheading along with the threat to continue killing Americans unless President Barack Obama ceased ordering airstrikes against ISIS.

The United States “used every single military, diplomatic, and intelligence tool” to prevent the murders, Kerry said.

“For so many who worked so long to bring Steven and other Americans home safely, this obviously was not how the story was meant to end. It’s a punch to the gut,” he said.

“And the United States government, I want you to know, has used every single military, diplomatic, and intelligence tool that we have, and we always will," Kerry said. "Our special operations forces bravely risked a military operation in order to save these lives, and we have reached out diplomatically to everyone and anyone who might be able to help. That effort continues, and our prayers remain as they always are, with the families of all of the hostages who remain trapped in Syria today.”

Kerry also highlighted the State Department’s “mission” to “unite religious communities,” explaining that “it’s a delusion to think that anyone can just retreat to their own safe space.”

“Why now have we made this such a mission at the State Department? Why elevate our engagement at a time when world events to some people seem so hopelessly divided along sectarian lines? And the answer is really very simple: It’s a delusion to think that anyone can just retreat to their own safe space, not when people of all faiths are migrating and mingling as never before in history,” he said.

“The reality is that our faiths and our fates are inextricably linked. And that is profoundly why we must do this now, because they are linked.”

I call BS.

Anyone who remembers John Kerry's military service in Vietnam and his turncoat testimony before Congress afterward already knows that Kerry is not only an idiot but doesn't really have the best interest of the United States in mind. The only way he could have become Secretary of State is because Barack Obama won the 2012 election. I don't think any other President, Democrat or Republican, would ever appoint such a boob to that position. All you have to do is listen to his two top priorities for the State Department - global warming prevention and promotion of homosexuality around the world - to know Kerry is an idiot. I'm sure the promotion of homosexuality worldwide is really, really important (I think he even wants to promote it in Islamic countries, where it is a capital offense) - however, I think most Americans would prefer he concentrate on the enemies of the United States who want to kill us. Of course, I could be wrong.

Frankly, with all the murders being committed by Muslims around the world, and the huge lack of negative responses from the non-violent Muslim community, I'm getting fed up with the Obama administration's assertion that Islam is a religion of peace. A religion of peace does not call for the murder of non-believers. Period.

We seriously need to rid the world of the Obama administration. Everyone who can vote should vote against any Democrat incumbent in November. Democrats under Obama have made us less safe in this violent world, less strong in world affairs, and have given the President far more power than he was ever supposed to have. For now he still has "a pen and a phone." Republicans need to take the House and Senate so they can put a stop to this administration once and for all. We need a strong leader in the White House who's priority is protecting America and her allies rather than appeasing Islam. Contrary to Obama's rhetoric - the world should belong to those who oppose the prophet Mohammed. He and his followers are evil, violent people who, in all honesty, care as little for Barack Obama as they do America.

Liberal Heads Must Be Spinning Around....!

I can almost feel the wind. It's rather refreshing to us conservatives, although I'm sure the liberals affected by it aren't very happy right now. But then - when are they happy with anything?

Why are their heads spinning so angrily? There are a couple of reasons for it - and they both involve Republicans. Imagine...

Remember back in 2008 when Sarah Palin said if Obama was the President it could very possibly encourage Vladimir Putin to invade the Ukraine? I'll refresh your memory...

"After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of moral indecision and equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next." - Sarah Palin

Palin was mocked by the left as being out of her league when it came to foreign policy. Her humorous comment that she could "see Russia from my house" was blown completely out of context with the left trying to pretend she was serious and really was that stupid. Tina Fey enhanced her career mocking Palin on Saturday Night Live (for which I believe she should pay Sarah Palin a royalty).

Lo and behold, enter 2014, the year Palin and other Republicans were vindicated. Putin did exactly what Palin predicted and for the very reason she said - because he's not afraid of Barack Obama in the least.

Go back a year to 2007. Democrats sponsored a bill that would pull all of the troops out of Iraq in 2008. President George W. Bush vetoed the bill saying:

"I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."

Much to the chagrin of the left - Bush was correct about that one as well. Nearly all of the progress we made in Iraq has been handed away to terrorists. Of course, President Obama and the left still love to blame Bush for what's going on in the region but Obama has been President and Commander-in-Chief for nearly six years. We now know he has known about ISIS for at least a year. Anyone with a functioning brain knows that the complete pullout of American troops, with nor residual forces left in Iraq, was the fault of Mr. Obama. He claimed the Iraq pullout as his own during the 2012 election campaign. Once things began getting bad suddenly it wasn't his decision. Funny how that works.

In a recent article, the liberal website ThinkProgress.org said that Bush' prediction was somehow lessened by the fact that Bush also said he would “not begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready.” Well duh... I've got news for them. Unlike our current President, that's what an intelligent, thoughtful Commander-in-Chief does - listens to his military leaders about military issues. President Obama was advised by his military leaders to leave a residual force in Iraq. He refused. Look how well that worked out.

Yes, liberal head are spinning all over the nation today. And liberal pundits, columnists and all around Obama supporters are still trying to spin this as somehow not being the fault of the sitting President. I still can't help but wonder how many years Obama will be in office, or maybe out of office, before he finally takes responsibility for anything that went wrong during his Presidency. I really doubt I'll see that in my lifetime. Narcissism is a powerful thing.

Obama Has Been Receiving ISIS Intel For A Year?

In a recent article, Fox News' Chief Intelligence Correspondent, Catherine Herridge, stated that one of her sources, who until recently worked at the Pentagon, told her President Obama has been receiving up-to-date information about ISIS in his daily security briefings for the last year.

The source says that detailed and specific intelligence information has been included in the President's Daily Brief for at least a year. The information clearly showed the danger and expansion ISIS proposed. Yet the President did nothing about it and told the American people he was "caught off guard" by the developments in Syria and Iraq in the last six months.

One cannot help but wonder why the President would say he was caught off guard. Could it be because the President doesn't really get his daily security briefings? The source told Catherine Herridge that when it comes to security briefings, President Obama is unique. Unlike former Presidents, who got their daily briefings from various people in person in the Oval Office, President Obama gets his in written form that he can read at his leisure. There are no question-and-answer sessions, as have occurred in most other administrations. Could this be the reason the President always says he learns about incidents around the world from the television - because he doesn't get his briefings in person and doesn't actually read the printed ones? It's just a thought.

Remember back in September of 2012 when the Government Accountability Institute reported that President Obama had attended less than 44% of his daily briefings? The White House did not dispute that report. Could it be Obama began receiving his reports in written form so whether or not he attended a briefing could no longer be tracked? I believe that's certainly possible from "the most transparent administration in history...."

Yesterday morning President Obama spoke about ISIS, the beheading of a second American journalist, and the possibility of a US response. The President first said the United States would "degrade and destroy" ISIS. Then he said he wanted to degrade them to the point "where we can control the problem."

"Our objective is to make sure that ISIL is not an ongoing threat to the region. And we can accomplish that. It's going to take some time and it's going to take some effort. As we've seen with al Qaeda, there are always going to be remnants that can cause havoc of any of these networks, in part because of the nature of terrorist activities. You get a few individuals, and they may be able to carry out a terrorist act.

But what we can do is to make sure that the kind of systemic and broad-based aggression that we've seen out of ISIL that terrorizes primarily Muslims, Shia, Sunni -- terrorizes Kurds, terrorizes not just Iraqis, but people throughout the region, that that is degraded to the point where it is no longer the kind of factor that we've seen it being over the last several months."

What's interesting is even Obama's cabinet members feel the need to say we must destroy ISIS, even as President Obama seems unwilling to do so. Obama once said he doesn't like the word "victory" when it comes to war. It seems he's still in that mode.

John Kerry and Chuck Hagel have both stated we need to destroy ISIS. Hagel even followed up on the President's message by saying "Our mission is to degrade and destroy ISIS," apparently thinking the President said the wrong thing about control.

What I still don't understand is why the President is taking so long to do anything at all. Even Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Chairperson of the Senate Intelligence Committee (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) said “I’ve learned one thing about this president, and that is he’s very cautious. Maybe, in this instance, too cautious,”

The more time that goes by, the more innocent people, including women, children and thousands of Christians, are dying. Some say we need to stay out of it and let the Middle Eastern countries handle it. But if the United States of America is truly a Christian nation (instead of a Muslim nation as the President wants people to believe) then we have an obligation to help fellow Christians who are being slaughtered. And interfering against a terrorist organization that is brutally murdering tens of thousands of people is never wrong.

Hopefully something will jump-start President Obama's response to ISIS and get him into the game. Maybe ISIS should bomb his favorite golf course, thus directly interfering with his game. Maybe then he'd take some decisive action...? Nah - he'd probably just move to another course.

Why Not Tell The Truth About Black Homicide In the United States?

The rioting in Ferguson, Missouri, over the shooting death of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson has garnered nationwide media attention and "deep concern" from black politicians, including the President of the United States. Some black leaders and black media pundits are claiming "there is a war on black men in this country," intimating that whites, particularly white law enforcement officers, are the ones waging war on black men. But is that even remotely true?

The facts I'm going to cite will irritate a few people but factual statistics often have a way of doing that.

According to the FBI, in 2012 there were 12,765 total murder victims in the United States. Seventy-seven percent of those victims were male and 51.1% were black, as opposed to 46.3% white and 2.6% other races.

Eighty-nine percent of the perpetrators of these homicides were male. 53.4 percent of the perpetrators were black, 44.3 percent were white, and 2.3 percent were of other races.

Law enforcement agencies reported 720 justifiable homicides in 2012. Of those 720, private citizens justifiably killed 310 people during the commission of crimes and law enforcement justifiably killed 410. And while several black leaders and pundits say that "according to the statistics, two black people were shot by police every week" - there are no FBI statistics that back up that claim. They claim that "fact" based on numbers of the percentage of black victims.

There is one web page, Vox.com, that says "The FBI doesn't publish the full Supplementary Homicide Report records, but it provided Vox with data that included every case of a "felon killed by a police officer" in 2012." The only problem with that is there is no way to verify it. The FBI doesn't normally go around giving out information to just one specific web page, however.

But according to this information by Vox, blacks comprised 31% of all "victims" killed by police during an arrest situation. Fifty-two percent were white. The average age of the black suspect was 20 while the average age of the whites was mid to upper 20s. The information provided by Vox also says that 39% of blacks were killed while "not attacking police" compared to 46% of whites.

Even if these statistics could be verified, there are other factors to be considered. Last week I put this chart in another post but it's relevant to this one as well.

Blacks make up just over 13% of the population of the United States. Yet they are arrested and charged of violent crimes at a rate just over the white population, which makes up 77% of the total. Some will say this is because blacks are profiled or single out or that law enforcement is racist but the fact is that young black males commit more crimes than young whites. And many are violent crimes.

Total Arrests 2012

Total                                                        White                                Black

Murder and non-negligent homicide    9,499,725                           6,578,133
Forcible Rape                                              8,341                                  4,000
Robbery                                                     14,611                                  9,504
Aggravated Assault                                 305,220                              194,981

Total                                                     9,828,197                            6,822,061

Whites outnumber blacks in this country 5 to 1 but only outnumber blacks in crime commission by 30%. And again - those are FBI numbers, not mine.

The thing that seems to be ignored in this country by black people screaming for justice is the fact that most young black men are killed by other young black men. According to a study by Businessweek magazine:

"For most young adults, aged 20 to 24, the No. 1 cause of death is car accidents, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control. For black men in that age group, though, the top cause of death is gun violence; they are four times more likely to be shot and killed than they are to die in a car accident."

"A young black man is nearly five times more likely to be killed by a gun than a young white man and 13 times more than an Asian American man. These numbers, dramatic as they are, actually understate the problem. If a black person is killed by a gun, it is judged a homicide 82 percent of the time. For the broad population, most gun deaths are ruled accidental or the result of suicide; only 34 percent of gun deaths are attributed to murder."

Critics will say "Well, 85% of the murders of whites are committed by other whites." And statistically that's true. But blacks are killed by other blacks at a rate of 99.9%. The actual numbers from 2012 were 7,089 whites killed by other whites and 3,996 blacks killed by other blacks. According to population statistics, the number of blacks killed by other blacks should have been 520. Therein lies one of the biggest problems.

You won't hear protesters in Ferguson screaming about black on black homicide. You won't see them burning down stores and gas stations in Chicago, Detroit, or Washington, DC, because of young black men being murdered by other young black men. Why? Because racism is easier to swallow and easier to sell to the public, and more lucrative for those who know how to use it to their advantage. 

If the protesters in Ferguson, particularly those from out of state, and black Americans nationwide who are screaming about the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, actually cared about the death of young black men they would be protesting in the streets of Chicago. If they cared about justice they would be demanding that some action be taken to prevent the murders of thousands of black men instead of just two. 

But as I said - racism sells. Racism draws attention and draws TV viewers. Decrying racism following an incident like the one in Ferguson makes liberals with white guilt feel better about themselves. It does all of that. But it doesn't fix the real problem.

Why Does Islam Have More Religious Rights Than Christians In The USA?

The following picture is of a sign that was posted in a Wegman's Food Market in New York state:

The sign was put up by the manager (or assistant manager) of one particular store because of a Muslim teenager they had hired as a cashier. The teenager told the manager she was uncomfortable handling those items because of her religious beliefs. So the store accommodated her.

What's the big deal, you ask? Why not accommodate the girl's Muslim beliefs? She's only one girl.

That's kind of the point. She's only one girl. And she took a job at a store that sells pork products and alcohol - knowing ahead of time that chances were she'd have to handle them. But instead of telling her she must abide by the standards by which she was hired, the manager decided to make an exception for her. I wonder - if one of his Christian employees had said "I'm not comfortable handling alcohol due to my Christian beliefs" - would that manager have made a second sign? Or perhaps if a Jewish employee objected to handling pork products? I think we all know the answer to those question.

When people complained to the store's headquarters they got the following response:

"It is not Wegmans’ policy to permit signage like this for any religious or lifestyle reason. The decision to post the sign was made at store level by a single employee, and it has since been reversed. The sign has been removed. We have coached the store on other ways they could have addressed the concerns of this employee, who knew when she took the job that it would include handling these products. We apologize if this has offended anyone."

At least the store recognizes the problem of accommodating only certain people or certain religious beliefs.

The reason this is important is because of another case in Illinois that made headlines earlier this year. Star Transport Trucking Company was sued by the federal government for violating the religious rights of two Muslim employees who took driving/delivery jobs and then refused to transport alcohol products because of their Muslim beliefs. The two employees were fired for refusing to honor their contracts.

Enter the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They are suing the company for "failing to accommodate two employees because of their religion, Islam, and discharging them." Apparently in today's world employees get to dictate to the employer what they will and will not do rather than the other way around. The suit is still pending a decision.

What I find interesting is how the government and the courts, both federal and local, will bend over backward to accommodate Muslims who cry religious discrimination but will rule against Christians nearly every time if the situation is reversed.

The Obama administration passed the Affordable Care Act that mandated employers - all employers regardless of their religious beliefs - provide birth control and abortifacient medications through their employee-assisted health care plans - even if providing those services and medications violated their religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby, a corporation owned and operated by Christians whose Christians values are part of their charter, sued the federal government for a waiver from that requirement, based on their beliefs. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United with the Obama administration not only saying Christian corporations had no religious right to object to these mandates but also vilifying such Hobby Lobby and other such corporations with lies about them denying health care to women.

Fortunately, in this particular case, the Supreme Court (in a 5-4 decision) ruled in favor of Christian religious rights and said the Obama administration cannot compel a corporation to provide abortifacient medications if it violates the religious beliefs of the corporation. (And contrary to the rhetoric from the left - the only thing Hobby Lobby objected to financing was the abortifacient medications. They did not object to other forms of birth control.)

In the last couple of years, several state Supreme Courts have ruled against the religious rights of Christians in their operation of small businesses. A bakery in Colorado, a photographer in New Mexico, and most recently the owners of a small farm in New York, were all sued over their refusals to provide services to same sex couples wanting to get married. The bakery refused to make a cake for a same sex wedding citing their Christian/Biblical beliefs in heterosexual marriage. The photographer refused to photograph a same sex wedding citing Christian/Biblical beliefs. And the owners of the farm said they would host a reception for a same sex couple but could not host the actual wedding - also based on their Christian/Biblical beliefs in heterosexual marriage.

In all three cased the local and then the state Supreme Courts ruled against the Christian businesses. What do you suppose would have happened if a same sex Muslim couple would have asked a Muslim baker to make a cake for their wedding, or asked a Muslim photographer to shoot their wedding, and they were refused? If the couple lived long enough to take the case to court you can bet the businesses would prevail because today's courts are afraid to rule against Muslims.

The politically correct left in this country doesn't realize they are helping Muslims take away the rights of all Americans, including those on the left. In the name of "tolerance" they allow Islam to get away with more and more. Are they (those on the left) paying attention to the fact that homosexuality is prohibited and even carries a death sentence under Sharia law? Do they understand that women have no rights under Sharia law? The more they give in to the demands of Muslims in this country the closer they are to losing their own rights. When businesses can be forced by the court to accommodate Muslims while being told they, as Christians, have no rights, there is something terribly wrong in America.

I only hope Americans will wake up to the truth about Islam before it's too late. Unlike American liberals - Muslims to not tolerate. Whatever violates their beliefs the destroy.