Will Our Courts Allow Discrimination For Some?

Last year in New Mexico, a court found that a photographer and her business-partner husband violated the civil rights of a lesbian couple by refusing to photograph their same-sex marriage, saying their religious beliefs disagreed with same-sex marriage. The case, which is pending appeal, basically told business owners they could not refuse service to someone based on sexual orientation regardless of their stated reason which, in this case, was based on their Biblical beliefs.

Interestingly, a year earlier in New Mexico, a gay hairdresser refused services to Susana Martinez, the Republican Governor, because she opposes same sex marriage. Antonio Darden, an openly gay man who had been doing the governor's hair, apparently decided that he was violating his own moral beliefs and could no longer cut the governor's hair "as long as she holds her traditional views on marriage."

“The governor’s aides called not too long ago, wanting another appointment to come in,” Darden told KOB-TV. “Because of her stances and her views on this, I told her aides no. They called the next day, asking if I’d changed my mind about taking the governor in and I said no.”

This incident happened in 2012 but it illustrates the complete hypocrisy of many on the left who side with Darden. Apparently they believe his moral beliefs are OK and defensible while people who oppose those beliefs for moral reasons of their own are not. It seems morality, right and wrong are being defined today by the left and it is no longer a two-way street. Even in our courts.

So what did Governor Martinez do about it? She could have sued Mr. Darden for discrimination and, based on the court case of the photographer, she should have been victorious. But I doubt she would have won. Most likely the same judge who decided the photography case would have found for the hairdresser - because being gay in the USA today seems to carry more rights than the religious freedoms guaranteed in writing by our Constitution.

Of course, Governor Martinez wasn't going to sue. The negative publicity would not have been good for her. And my point is not about being gay or one side being more moral than the other - it's about whether or not a business owner has the right to refuse service to someone and if not - shouldn't that be equal regardless of where you stand on an issue? Can it be in this great nation that one group can discriminate based on their own moral values but another group who disagrees with them cannot? Where is justice when a court blatantly allows one group to discriminate but not another?

If I was gay and I wanted a wedding cake made for me and my partner, or wanted a photographer for my same-sex marriage, and I discovered the shop I chose did not want to do it because they disagreed with my lifestyle based on their own Christian or moral beliefs, the last thing I would want to do is have a court force them to do it against their will (as in the case in Colorado.) I would like to think I would say "Then I'll take my business and my money elsewhere," and walk away. But that's me.

Likewise, if I was refused service by an establishment because of my conservative views on marriage and/or relationships I would move on from there as well. I'm not about drama and I'm certainly going to be somewhat concerned about any service I might get from someone who is being forced to provide it.

I would like to see the judge who decided the photographer's case make it public that the hairdresser's actions were also a violation of civil rights. But that won't happen because Governor Martinez didn't make a big deal out of it. She moved on. And rightly so.

This issue is going to get ugly before it's resolved, I fear. There will be cases that test the court's wisdom when it comes to LGBT issues versus religious issues, particularly when the LGBT community comes up against the Islamic community, who also believes homosexuality is wrong. That, I think, will be the case that renders a final decision on the matter. It will be interesting to say the least.

Racism And Bigotry At Rutger's University?

Condoleeza Rice has been invited to speak at the commencement exercises at Rutgers University this year. Rice, the daughter of a poor sharecropper who grew up to be the first female Secretary of State under President George W. Bush, is now under fire from the faculty of Rutgers, particularly two white, male professors, to be dis-invited as commencement speaker because, among other things, she "played a prominent role in (the Bush) administration’s effort to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction,” according to the faculty resolution. And she “at the very least condoned the Bush administration’s policy of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ such as waterboarding,” it said.

“A Commencement speaker… should embody moral authority and exemplary citizenship,” it continued, and “an honorary Doctor of Laws degree should not honor someone who participated in a political effort to circumvent the law.”

The resolution, created and circulated by a chemistry professor and a history professor at Rutgers, basically wishes to stifle free speech from the conservative side. As a person of significant historical presence in the ongoing saga of the United States - Condoleeza Rice should be a welcome speaker at any commencement in the country - except she's a Republican. And we know you can't invite a Republican to a liberal school. After all - we wouldn't want liberal students to be exposed to another point of view.

If Liberty University, a Christian conservative institution of higher learning, was to call for the rescinding a liberal speaker, who happened to be female and/or black, because of her past political ties and actions, real or perceived, they would be labeled racist, sexist and religious bigots at the very least. 

What's interesting is that President Obama himself has been invited by Rutgers to speak at the 2016 commencement exercises. President Obama, a historic figure who has also lied to the American people to further his political agenda and has carried on three different war fronts during his five years in office, has been invited to speak. I wonder - will these same two professors, citing the same reasons as against Condoleeza Rice, reject the President as well? 

One of the professors was on Hannity last night. I heard the interview on the radio this morning. Hannity asked the very question - "Will you object to President Obama speaking since he has carried on wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and lied to the American people to further his agenda?" The professor wouldn't say either way. He did say that Obama is the President and Rice holds no position - completely tossing her history aside. 

I can't help but wonder if former President George W. Bush would be accepted by these two as a commencement speaker. After all - he was President but he no longer holds office. In their eyes personal history is only a qualifier if it's something they can use against you.

Is it sexist racism that is driving these two to keep former Secretary of State away from Rutgers? Is it pure political hatred? Or is it something else entirely? I'll let you decide.

How will students at liberal universities ever learn the complete truth about life and the world if they're only allowed by the faculty to hear the liberal agenda? Be afraid for our future. Be very afraid.

I've Done Nothing Wrong... So I Plead The Fifth

Lois Lerner, the former IRS official who sat before Congress last year and said she did nothing wrong in the case of the IRS targeting conservative and Jewish political action groups then pleaded her Fifth Amendment rights when asked specific questions, has done it again.

Lerner, who is probably the key witness with detailed information concerning the entire (and still ongoing) event, received another subpoena to return to the House Oversight Committee hearing today to face more questioning. Originally it was said she would refuse to appear but that would have been a mistake on her part. She would have earned a contempt of Congress charge. (I may be guilty of that charge sometimes because I find myself contemptuous of Congress on a regular basis.)

Here is the thing I'm having difficulty with. During the initial hearing Ms. Lerner told the committee that she has "done nothing wrong." She made a short speech about it and then clammed up. When the committee began asking her specific questions she invoked her Fifth Amendment rights so as not to incriminate herself.

Wait....  huh? If you've done nothing wrong how is it you could incriminate yourself by answering questions?

Obviously Ms. Lerner is going to take the advice of her attorney rather than cooperate. However, with the e-mails allegedly sent by Ms. Lerner to associates, now made public, it seems her claim of innocence might not be quite true after all.

During the initial hearing, following Ms. Lerner's announcements that she did nothing wrong followed up by pleading her Fifth Amendment rights, she should have been held in contempt. Of course, I'm not a lawyer but if you make a statement of innocence and follow it up by saying "I refuse to answer because my answer may incriminate me,"then one of two things is true. You were either lying with the first statement or the second. Both statements cannot be true.

So which is it, Ms. Lerner? Are you guilty of knowingly and illegally targeting certain political action groups for increased IRS scrutiny to help your candidate win and election? Or are you an innocent victim of circumstance who is protecting someone else? Either way you're guilty of something - either the suspected wrongdoing or obstruction of justice. I guess that's why you're still pleading the 5th. By now you have certainly gotten yourself into legal trouble - even if you did cause it yourself.

Wasting Away Again In "BlameBushVille"

MSNBC host Rachael Maddow the other day said Vladimir Putin's aggression toward the Ukraine is George W. Bush's fault.

Referring to her upcoming documentary "Why We Did It," supposedly about circumstances leading to the Iraq War, Maddow told Andrea Mitchell that the Bush administration is largely responsible for the nation's current foreign policies.

“The decisions of our generation on national security are determined more than anything by what the George W. Bush administration did with that nine-year war in Iraq and, alongside it, a 13-year war in Afghanistan that’s still going on," she told Mitchell. "And the American people are against those wars."

“Those are the determinative constraints for our thinking about everything,” she continued, “from Crimea, to Syria, to what the overall size of the U.S. military is.”

Really, Rachael? So Vladimir Putin invading Crimea and threatening a full scale military attack in the Ukraine is Bush's fault? Do you ever come back and visit the real world? Does anyone miss you while you're gone?

Let me enlighten you just a bit - not that you'll learn anything. Unless he is mentally ill (which certainly is possible)  there is no one responsible for Putin's aggressive behavior except Putin himself. Putin was a KGB agent in the former Soviet Union. He liked it. He wants to build Russia back up to the way it was before. The only way to accomplish that is to acquire land, people and, by so doing, power.

Putin has no fear of President Obama. He has no care about President Bush. I don't blame Obama for Putin's actions. But I do blame Obama, at least somewhat, for Putin's complete lack of fear and/or respect for Obama. One of the first things Obama did after taking office was scrub the European Missile Defense Shield. Obama believed if he made nice with Putin, Putin would be his friend. He was wrong.

Putin watched very carefully the events of the Syrian chemical weapons incident. He watched as Obama drew that "red line" and told Syria not to cross it - then watched Obama back down when Syria did just that. Seeing huge opportunity for exploitation of the situation, Putin then stepped in and helped broker a deal, in the process making himself look good and making Obama look weak.

That lesson wasn't lost on Putin. Nor was it the last. He then watched as his friend Iran defied the world's demands to stop enriching uranium and watched as the Obama administration made a another deal that is basically worthless. Putin has no fear of, or respect for Barack Obama or the United States because Obama has shown him nothing to fear or respect. Putin deals in strength and power. Obama likes to talk. Putin doesn't fear talk.

Some people say Bush didn't do anything when Russia invaded Georgia. That's not exactly true. The Bush administration worked up several severe sanctions and had a military response planned just in case. They also sent planes full of supplies to Georgia as a sign of solidarity and support. One thing Bush did not do was talk tough. But since he had already demonstrated his metal in using the American military if necessary, it wasn't necessary.

President Obama did have warning about Putin's possible future aggression - albeit from Republican sources. In 2008, Sarah Palin, the darling of conservatives and evil, vilified bane of liberals, suggested that Obama's election could encourage Putin to one day invade Georgia.

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

It wasn't exactly a prediction but it came true nonetheless. It's gotta smart when even Sarah Palin gets it right and you get it wrong, huh, Mr. President?

During a debate with Mitt Romney during the 2012 Presidential campaign, Mitt Romney was mocked by President Obama for saying that Russia was our greatest geopolitical threat.

President Obama attacked Governor Romney:

"Governor Romney, I'm glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years.

But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s."

These statements about Al Qaeda interestingly came after Obama had spent most of 2012 telling the American people that Al Qaeda had been decimated and was no longer a real danger.

And Governor Romney responded appropriately and accurately:

"Russia, I indicated, is a geopolitical foe... and I said in the same -- in the same paragraph I said, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I'm not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia, or Mr. Putin. And I'm certainly not going to say to him, I'll give you more flexibility after the election. After the election, he'll get more backbone."

So if President Obama had taken the advice of these two well known Republicans and paid more attention to national security briefings he might have been prepared for this. But his daily security briefings seem to be something he once again is forgoing. They could have given him information that would have allowed him to make a preemptive plea (or demand) of Putin not do do it. He should have been able to tell the world it was coming. He didn't.

Do you get it now, Rachael? Even if you live and work at MSNBC - move out of BlameBushVille and come back to the real world. And bring all of those other Bush haters with you. No matter what Bush may have done during his Presidency, right or wrong, Obama has been President for five long years. He as been President long enough that you really should stop blaming his predecessor for the problems we have today. How long will you continue to live in BlameBushVille? My guess is until there is another Republican President elected. Then you can simply switch the blame to him/her.

*Note: As of 6pm Eastern time yesterday FOX News was reporting that Vladimir Putin had backed off a bit, believed to have been deterred from his hostile invasion of the Ukraine by President Obama's steps toward imposing tough economic and diplomatic sanctions against his country. If this is true then congratulations to President Obama. It doesn't necessarily mean Putin is afraid - more likely worried about what can happen to his already flailing economy. And it doesn't mean he won't regroup and try something else later - maybe with financial backing from China or the Iranian government. But for now Putin blinked. And that's good for the world.

By 9pm that decision seems to have turned around once again. The general consensus now is that Putin has taken Crimea and won't be giving it back. That's probably the truth. We shall see what happens in the next few days.

In the meantime - either way - it's still not Bush's fault.

Putin and The Ukraine - Republican Predictions That Came True

From the ABC local affiliate in Obamaville (Chicago, IL) USA...

"March 2, 2014 -- Sarah Palin may be having a bragging rights moment.

Back in 2008 while running for president, the former Republican governor said then-Senator Barack Obama's reaction to Russia invading Georgia would "encourage" Russia to invade Ukraine next. Foreign Policy magazine labeled Palin's prediction as "strange."

And remember this from President Obama during the 2012 campaign when candidate Mitt Romney said Putin and Russia are a big threat to the United States and world security?

From ijreview.com:

In the heat of the 2012 campaign, during an October presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, Obama ridiculed Romney over his concern about Russia as a “geo-political” threat.

Obama attempted to paint Romney as somehow out-of-touch with 21st century geo-politics, suggesting (ironically, as we now know) that al-Qaeda was a bigger threat than Russia. “You said Russia. Not al-Qaeda. You said Russia,” Obama said regarding biggest threats. Then came this snarky blast:

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

Gee... it turns out Palin and Romney were correct. And the really bad thing is it seems President Obama now has no idea what to do. 

I can't help but wonder, when President Obama told Putin he would have "more flexibility after the election" what, exactly, he meant. How painful it must be to know that even Sarah Palin was more knowledgeable than he about Russia and Putin. He won the elections but I bet there are times, such as now, when he wishes maybe he hadn't. He seems clueless. Putin is running wild in that part of the world, taking territories back that once belonged to the former Soviet Union and President Obama has surrounded himself with liberals who have no real sense of military and strategic foreign policy maneuvers.

The President of the United States is supposed to be the world leader. This President was supposed to bring peace and harmony to the world and everyone was supposed to do what he wanted. Except his complete lack of strength and leadership has made him a joke in hostile parts of the world. And even with friendly nations.

So far all Obama has done is talk some semi-tough talk and cancel the US government delegation to the Sochi Paralympics Games. You can bet that is going to make Putin change his ways.

I don't really fault Obama for not knowing what to do in this situation. He has no leadership experience on which to rely and probably has never been in a real fight in his life. What I fault him for is pretending that he had enough life experience to be the President of the United States and the supposed leader of the free world. I blame those who elected him twice far more than I blame him.

It looks like we may be headed back into another cold war with Russia. We're certainly not going to attack them for fear of starting World War III - with nukes this time. Both sides know that. So Putin is currently free to do whatever he wants. Europe won't do anything. They're too dependent on Ukrainian oil. There is no one else. If I lived in the Ukraine and was waiting for help from the outside, if I couldn't leave the country, I would begin re-learning the Russian national anthem. It's about survival.

Will Matthew McConaughey Ever Work In Hollywood Again?

The other night actor Matthew McConaughey surprised Hollywood and the world during his acceptance speech for Best Actor in the movie "Dallas Buyer's Club.

McConaughey kissed his wife, hugged fellow nominee Leonardo DiCaprio, and went to the stage where he led off with the following statement:

“First off I want to thank God, because He’s the one I look up to. He’s graced my life with opportunities which I know are not of my hand or any other human hand. He has shown me that it’s a scientific fact that gratitude reciprocates. In the words of the late [British actor] Charlie Laughton, who said, ‘When you got God you got a friend and that friend is you.’

Wow. Imagine that. A top name Hollywood anchor expressing Christian faith on an internationally televised awards show. Rather than bring up some political topic to promote a left-wing cause - Mr. McConaughey expressed his gratitude to God for his good fortune. He went on to thank his parents:

"To my family, that’s who and what I look forward to. To my father, I know he’s up there right now with a big pot of Gumbo, he’s got a lemon meringue pie, he’s probably up there in his underwear, he’s got a cold can of Miller lite and he’s dancing right now.

To my dad, you taught me what it means to be a man, to my mother, who’s here tonight, you taught me and my two older brothers, demanded, that we respect ourselves. What we in turn learned was, we were then better able to respect others."

What a gentleman and a brave soul. I've always liked Matthew McConaughey. He's a great actor and a fellow Texan. (Yeah, I'm a transplant but proud of it.) It seems being married with a family has strengthened his faith and his character. Not to mention made his hair turn darker....

I didn't watch. I can't stand watching that many self-aggrandizing liberals gathered in the same place. But I now wish I had watched the awards show if only to see the reaction of the crowd to McConaughey's speech. There was some shock and awe in the room during that first paragraph, no doubt. The crowd was noticeably slow to respond. Initially you could hear the silence but some did eventually applaud. At least they didn't boo.

Now the question is - will liberal Hollywood still allow him to work? If nothing else I bet there will be a place for him to work with Roma Downey and Mark Burnett. He would be a great asset to their next Christian movie.

Congratulations, Matthew. I will now go see your movie to see what earned you the award. You already thanked the One who is responsible for your success and I applaud you for it.

Equal Protection Under The Law?

In one of my posts last week I briefly mentioned a story about two Muslim truck drivers who were dismissed from employment by Star Transport Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Illinois. The two drivers both refused to transport alcohol based on their Muslim beliefs. The company apparently decided that if the drivers were going to pick and choose the loads they drove they (the company) didn't need them. And it seems to be to be the correct decision based on the business of that company.

Not so says the Obama administration. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is now suing Star Transport, Inc., for failing to accommodate the two drivers and their religious beliefs.

It's an interesting twist to the various other equal protection stories out there. Last year in Colorado a baker refused to make a wedding cake for a couple's gay wedding based on his Christian beliefs that marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman and God. The couple sued the baker and a judge ordered him to make the cake against his wishes and religious rights.

Also last year in New Mexico a photographer refused to photograph a lesbian couple's wedding based on her Christian beliefs. The couple sued her as well and won the initial ruling. That case is still pending appeal but it's not difficult to predict the outcome. New Mexico is a liberal state and Christians don't share the same religious protection as Muslims in Obama's America.

Liberals and atheists scoff that Christians are being persecuted in this country. Persecution may not be the correct word but there is a definite movement against Christianity by the left and equal protection of Christians' religious freedom rights is no longer guaranteed. The three cases mentioned above prove that decidedly.

As for the case brought against Star Transport by the EEOC, if the two drivers were not Muslim there would be no complaint. The company treated the two men like they would treat any other driver - if you refuse to perform the job you accepted you no longer have a job. If the two men would have been employed with the stipulation that they would not have to transport alcohol because of their beliefs then I could see their point. But if that understanding wasn't there from the beginning they should have no cause for complaint. It's simply another case of the government showing favoritism to Muslims.

There will be some who will say I'm a bigot, a homophobe, a racist or whatever because I believe these cases are all wrong. But equal protection of religious beliefs is supposed to mean equal for everyone. If the trucking company discriminated against the Muslims and their religious beliefs then the government discriminated against the baker and the photographer and theirs. Interestingly - the government is the only one who can get away with it.

I'll bring up, once again, a perfect example to illustrate my point. Imagine, if you will, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church entering a printing shop owned by a gay couple and asking them to make 15 signs that say "God Hates Homos." Would the printing shop have the right to refuse to make the signs? After all - the WBC is only acting on their religious beliefs. If the printing shop refuses to make the signs and the WBC sues them - who do you believe would win that lawsuit? In Obama's America I can tell you it wouldn't be the WBC. (And don't misunderstand - the WBC is a vile group of people who spread hate. But as a church they do have the right to believe as they wish.)

What do you suppose would happen if a gay couple went into a Muslim owned bakery and asked for a wedding cake? The Muslim baker would refuse based on Sharia law. The couple would most likely sue. But gee - who would win that one? You can't show partiality to both sides in a legal dispute. There would never be a winner.