Now Fox News Targeted by DOJ - Meghan Kelly Reports - Video

If this isn't Nixonian, I don't know what is.  Be very afraid America, be very afraid.  No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, this should outrage you.  This will only make our government workers more afraid to come forward with information that is being withheld from us "for our own good".

Tyndale Publishing Will Not Be Forced to Go Against Religous Beliefs

Tyndale Publishing, one of the world's largest publishers of Christian materials, will not be forced to offer birth control and abortifacients with its health insurance which are against their religious beliefs.  

The Obama administration has elected not to stand up in court and make the ludicrous claim that a publishing house that only publishes Christian materials and gives large portions of its profits to Christian causes does not qualify as a religious employer.  

Score one for the good guys.  

R.I.P. America - Your Rights Are Gone

I am feeling down today; really down today.  One of the reasons is this story:

Chick-fil-A has pledged to stop giving money to anti-gay groups and to back off political and social debates after an executive’s comments this summer landed the fast-food chain smack in the middle of the gay marriage debate.
The Civil Rights Agenda, which dubs itself the largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group in Illinois, said Chick-fil-A agreed in meetings to stop donating to groups such as Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage. Such groups oppose same-sex marriage.

This was done after an Alderman in Chicago was trying to block additional permits for the franchise owner to finish construction on the restaurant he was trying to open.  A restaurant, by the way, that had already had all the permits it needed to do business.  But this Alderman decided that he would shake the company down because he didn't the like the views of the corporate owner of Chick Fil A.  

Zero proof existed that Chick Fil A discriminated in its hiring practices nor did they refuse to serve someone based on their sexual orientation.  What they did do is give money to organizations that promoted traditional marriage.  Something that in our Constitutional Republic should be allowed.  If you don't like their beliefs, don't eat there.  That is your right as an American as well.  Instead an elected official has decided that he has the right to interfere with a person's personal belief and shake them down in order to get his way.  To squelch free speech and free assembly.  He has pissed all over the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.  

It is of no consequence if you agree with Chick Fil A or not.  You can be for gay marriage and realize how wrong this is. They have taken away their rights, what is stopping them from coming for yours?  America, the land of free, as long as Alderman Moreno says so.  

We are no longer free.  

Excuse me while I go to lie down and cry.  

Quote of the Day - Steven Kurlander Edition

Given the known consequences, it's time to ban garbage that mocks the God of a billion people and purposefully incites the worst religious passions. It's time the Supreme Court reconsidered whether such fiery speech should indeed be protected.

Steven Kurlander of Hernando Today on the video that did not cause the riots in the Muslim world.  The evidence is quite clear, that it was a pre-planned attack to avenge the killing of #2 of al-Qaeda.  

This is why I can't be a liberal.  It doesn't matter if the video was offensive, what matters is his right to express his view points.  The fact that they reaction to it was violent only gives credence to his view.   

This isn't a Muslim country, this happened in Australia.  It is more than shocking that a woman would give her young child such a sign.  It speaks volumes.  Tolerance only works if it is a two-way street, and from the looks of this this street is anything but two-way.  

Freedom of Speech and the Slippery Slope

While there always have been and always will be discussions on free speech, it seems to be at a fever pitch of late.  Rush Limbaugh calling a law student a slut, Bill Maher and his constant attacks on conservative women, a presidential candidate weighing in a new television show, the looney left's drive to remove Rush from the airwaves and to even have him prosecuted are all in the news.

Gloria Allred is on yet another crusade this time to see Rush stand in front of judge because he called Sandra Fluke a bad name. Seriously?  C'mon do you how many bad names I have been called since I starting blogging?  I am not interested in seeing the people responsible for it arrested.  I am on record saying that Rush was wrong for using that language.  Rush has since apologized for his poor choice of words.  The boycott attempt to push his sponsors from dropping his show has been a failure.

There is a push on the right to get the Obama to return the $1 million donation from Bill Maher to his super-pac.  Legally speaking, Obama has no control over that.  Of course we all know that there are ways around that, but legally he can't ask them to return anything.  There are "walls" between the candidates and the pacs.  The courts have ruled that money going to a super-pac is a form of free speech.  Agree or not agree, it is now the law of the land.

Does the left really have the right to tell a company who they can and cannot advertise with?  I don't think they do.  They are private companies, they can use their advertising dollars anyway that fits their business model.  Of course boycotts are part of the American fabric and allow an individual to make their choices as to whom they spend their money with.  But I, for one, do not have the time or the desire to listen to such shows like Ed Schultz to figure out who his sponsors are so I can boycott them to prove my point.  I do that by not watching and occassionally mocking him on my blog when he says something even more stupid than normal.

The ABC TV show GCB has even raised the attention of Newt Gingrich:

"Here's to show you the biases of the elite media, look at the new show that's on that has the word 'Christian' in it and I want you to take the exact name, drop out Christian and put in Muslim."

What he says is true.  The outcry for a show named GMB would be loud enough to be heard around the world.  But, I have to ask would he be joining in at that outcry?  Is it simply because it is Christian that upsets him?  One of the stars of the show, Kristin Chenoweth is a self-described Christian. Her view of the show is:

"There's a difference between making fun of something and having fun with something, and we do the latter."

I have not seen the show, nor do I plan on ever seeing the show so I can't say for certain if she is right or not.  But I do know that the book was not mocking Christianity.  It was mocking the way people use church as a social event and how some women never grow up and still live out the same fantasies that they had back in high school, and the conflict that causes in the lives of the people around them who do want to move beyond it.  I received the book as a gift during a chick lit secret Santa thing I went to, and I enjoyed the book and didn't find it offensive.  Although, I admit, I don't normally offend all that easily.

My point being that we are coming dangerously close to ignoring our freedom of speech rights in this country.  This constant back and forth about who is allowed to say what and the price they have to pay for it when they say it.  Look there is no law saying that we have freedom of speech as long as you are not offended by it.  You will be offended by the speech of others.  There are very few universally shared values in the U.S..

Bill Maher is offensive to me as conservative and as a woman.  Many women on the left find him to be equally offensive.  But, does that mean he is not allowed to participate in the political process?  I don't think it does.  Had it been anyone else that gave a $1 million check the chances are we wouldn't have heard about it at all unless we went through and looked up the donors.  Depending on how this pac is set up, they may not even have to disclose that information.  That mistake in the law is a post for another time, but my point being that it is only because he is so publicily offensive that we even heard about it.  I am sure their are plenty of other people who have given to Obama's pac that I would find equally or even more offensive and their is no outcry for them to give them their money back.

As much as I don't like Bill Maher, it is not my place to say that he isn't allowed to involve himself in the political process.  I certainly wouldn't want someone to say that to me.  I am sure that my writings have offended at least some people.  But as an American citizen I have constitutional rights.  Just because I don't like someone or disagree with their beliefs doesn't mean that I get to say someone else has to limit theirs.

The question we must ask ourselves is that do we really want to censor each other's speech?  Isn't their another more effective way of getting our points across?  The Constitution protects all Americans, not just the ones we agree with.

Isn't The Tea Party Standing Up for the Constitution?

As you may have figured out I am very active on social media.  I am on every presidential candidate's email list, I get emails from all types of conservative groups, and I have twitter and facebook accounts as well.  I get all kinds of things sent to me about the conservative movement.  Many of which mention the constitution.  I have been doing reading and going to different events to learn more about the constitution.

So I was very surprised today when I was told that The Tea Party Mission didn't include the rally that is being held on March 23 to preserve religious freedom.  The posting I put up on this rally was removed and I was given a warning for breaking the "rules".  Really?  I would like to know what exactly I have been doing for the past three years then.  Wasn't the entire point of learning more about the constitution was to be able to elect officials that would actually follow it?

I am in agreement that social issues are not necessarily the purview of The Tea Party, but how exactly do you separate an issue of the first amendment and The Tea Party?  The entire reason we are in the place that we find ourselves in now is because the federal government has been trampling all over our constitutional rights for several generations now.  The federal government has grown well beyond what the founders ever intended.  As such they involve themselves in things that are none of their business and are better left for the states and local governments to decide.  When they do this they waste more and more of our resources in terms of time and money as well as stripping our freedoms away; bit by bit.

The Tea Party was also formed to let our government know that we were no longer going to stand and allow them to take more and more of our freedoms away.  Mandating to the church that they have to violate their consciences in order to provide free birth control is all about freedom.  It doesn't matter what you personally feel about birth control and/or abortion because they are not the issue.  This is strictly a first amendment issue.  It is just being discussed in terms of birth control and women's health.

You need to ask yourselves if the government is allowed to take this protected right away from the church what is next?  If the Tea Party isn't going to stand up and protect this then they may as well just fold up the tents and go home.  Because we are done.

And your thoughts on the matter?

Rush Changing the Narrative

There are many on the right who are very unhappy, to say the least, about Rush Limbaugh issuing an apology for calling Sandra Fluke a slut.  They shouldn't be.  The anger should be directed at him using the word in the first place.  Above and beyond how derogatory the word is towards women, it changed the conversation; and not in a good way.

I understand what Rush was trying to do.  He was pointing out the irony of her claim.  But the truth is we know nothing about this woman's sex life.  If you are thinking to yourself that you do, then when is the last time she performed a sexual act?  How many partners has she had in the past six months?  Is she heterosexual or homosexual?  Chances are you know none of the answers to these questions because she never discussed her sex life and what type of birth control (if any) that she uses.  She discusses the topic in a more generic conversation and talked about countless "others" who tell her their stories of woe.

What Rush and everyone else needs to be concentrating on is the first amendment.  The government trying to dictate to a church what is and what isn't protected by the constitution, not her sex life.  Seriously, are you all that interested in her sex life?  I am not.  I could care less what she does in her bedroom. As long as it done by consenting adults, it is none of my concern.  What is my concern is how she is trying to push her will and her view-point onto the Catholic Church and Georgetown University.  She chose that school for a reason.  She went there specifically to try to force them to change their policy on birth control.  She did this before Obamacare and the mandates were even an issue.  She has been working on this for almost three years.

Look, birth control isn't the issue.  I have used birth control in my life (which I paid for myself) and I can guarantee you no one will be accusing me of being a slut.  Newsflash; not all conservative women are virgins when the get married and therefore use birth control.  Newsflash;, not all conservative women are looking to have large families; so they use birth control.  The issue is does the federal government have the right to force a religious institution to go against the doctrines and teachings of the church that has been around for thousands of years?  These church teachings have been in existence long before the U.S. was ever formed.

The left set the trap and we conservatives walked right into it.  This isn't about sex, it isn't about birth control, it is about liberty.  We need to do ourselves a favor and stop talking about this woman's sex life and deal with the fact that she is trying to push her will onto the rest of the country; regardless of the constitutional protections that are in place.  We need to stop playing their game.  They wanted to paint conservatives as a bunch of people who think anyone who uses birth control is some sort of sexual deviant who needs us to tell them how to live their lives and what drugs they can and cannot put into their bodies.  That is a battle we cannot, should not  and will not win.  Americans don't want the right telling them how to live their lives anymore than they want left doing it.  What Americans want is their freedoms and liberties to be protected.  Our job is to tell them that they are being ebbed away by an over-reaching, ever more powerful federal government in the guise of discussion on birth control.  If we keep the discussion on birth control and Ms. Fluke's sex life they don't see that they are giving away their liberties willingly in exchange for a $9 pack of generic birth control pills.

March 23 Lunchtime Rally to Preserve Religious Freedoms

I am not Catholic, but I understand fully what Catholic Charities do in this country.  Catholic Charities across the United States will be forced to close their doors in order to protect their first amendment rights to the Freedom of Religion.  


This administration is waging a war against our beliefs and wants to make us a more secular country.  


Stand up and say Hell No, I Won't Go.  We are being dragged to a place that our society does not want to go to.  


Find a location near you.  If there isn't one, organize one.  Go to your congressman's office if no federal buildings are near by.  Doesn't matter if they support this mandate or not.  If they are not fighting to get it reversed they are not doing enough.  


Visuals matter and this president needs to see that we will not stand by and watch him take our right to worship and the Church's right to their conscience and their doctrine.


This isn't about birth control, this about our constitutional right to worship and the government not interfering with it.  Only the willfully blind don't see the difference.  No one is taking access to birth control, this about forcing a religious body to pay for something that goes against what they firmly believe in.  You want birth control paid for by insurance, don't work for a religious institution.  It is that simple.  


If you don't stand up now, it may be too late.  

A World without Catholic Charities

I think it will come as no surprise to anyone that I have strong opinions about a myriad of topics. The Catholic Church among them. I am strongly anti-Catholic church, but not Catholic people. I have no issue with someone who chooses to follow the faith, it just isn't for me. One of the reasons that I feel so strongly about it is the hypocrisy of allowing people like Nanny Pelosi to meet with the pope and to receive communion, especially in his presence. My church wouldn't allow someone like the strongly pro-abortion politician to receive communion. You want to espouse those ideas so publicly and pass the laws that undermine church teaching you shouldn't be allowed to partake in receiving the holy sacraments.

But my opinion doesn't cloud my judgement when it comes to the autonomy that they should receive when it comes to the right to worship. Catholic Charities does works around the entire world for the betterment of society. They help the forgotten children get into the homes of the childless among many other things. I know several people who adopted through Catholic Charities.

More than 90% of the homeless shelters and soup kitchens in this country alone are run by faith-based groups. They never ask what faith, if any, you are. They will give you shelter and food. They will give one time loans to the people who may be on the verge of homelessness. They help people with young children keep the electricity and heat on in their homes. They clothe the needy.

In the aftermath of Katrina the faith-based groups worked tirelessly to help the victims get back on their feet. They are still there in some cases. The same is true of Haiti. Our world is a better place because of faith-based charities.

Over the weekend at CPAC I was having dinner with a friend who ran into a friend who is a liberal and she joined us for dinner. She told me that she didn't see it as an attack on the church. She reminded me that many catholic women use birth control. Ok, I suppose that is true. But it doesn't matter if many Catholic women use birth control or not. The church doesn't run by polls. It runs by a doctrine based upon the belief system set out in the bible. Just because many of the "faithful" choose not to follow the doctrine doesn't mean that the doctrine doesn't exist. It doesn't mean that the doctrine should be changed. It doesn't mean that the doctrine is misguided. Nor does it mean that the church should have to pay for it. All human beings fall short of the will of God. Every last one of us. Sadly, far too many Christians fall into the cafeteria style religion that has become all to common in modern-day society. We pick and choose what we take from the faith and leave the things that we find hard or go against what modern-day society tells us is acceptable in the world. This being the case makes it even more imperative that the church stands its ground. The moral guidance that faith gives our society should not be watered down.

The exemption for faith-based groups exist. They are so stringent that they hard to achieve, but not impossible. I once worked for a charity called the prison fellowship ministries. I only worked there on a contract basis, but the full-time employees have to sign something saying that they accept Jesus Christ as their savior. If you are unwilling to sign it, you can't be an employee there. It is that simple. But most faith-based charities don't require that. You can be of any faith to work there and they will help anyone of any faith, or lack thereof.

I asked this woman if she would be alright if Catholic charities and other faith-based groups stopped helping people of different faiths. She told me she would fine with that. Really? You are willing to forgo the good these organizations do just to prove a point about birth control? I was stunned to say the least. I would like to think she doesn't have a firm idea of what faith-based groups do around the world.

But I got to thinking, maybe that is the point. Maybe this is the whole reason that they are pushing this. Stay with me now. Say that many faith-based groups do decide to change the way they run their organizations. They will only administer help to people within their own faith in order to stay in compliance with the exemption. What happens to all the others who will no longer be getting the help that they give? They have to turn to the state. Especially if they are not people of faith.

It would be virtually impossible for the faith-based groups to know if the people they are helping are truly people of that faith. I wouldn't put it past atheist activists to try to get services from a faith-based group and then publicize the fact that they were not truly just administering to the "faithful". Many good people would lose jobs at Catholic University's and hospitals. Many people in need of service would be turned away.

Many government grants go to Catholic charity groups all over the country. They are much better at administering to the needs of the poor and underprivileged. This will all have to stop. The programs again would fall back to the pervue of the federal and state governments. The entire reason that they were given to the faith-based groups in the first place was that they helped more people for less money. They understand the needs of an individual community much better because they live there. They dont' fall into the one size fits all mentality that is the norm with government based programs.

So the next time that President Obama talks about helping the poor we need to remind ourselves of the damage he will cause by pushing this mandate to its logical conclusion. The poor will become even more underserved, unless of course they happen to be of the same faith of the organization down the street that could and would help.

I don't think this was the hope and change that people voted for.

The High Court Rightly Defends Westboro Crazies Right to Protest

The SCOTUS decision on the Westboro Church's protests of military funerals was released today.  The decision was 8-1, Alito being the only dissenter.  As much as I find the members of the Westboro Church to be crazy and offensive, this was the right decision.  Free speech and the right to assemble must be protected. 

There also has been misunderstanding of the case.  While protesting this particular funeral the family wasn't even aware of the presence of the protesters until they were told about it from someone seeing media reports.  In no way did they interrupt the services.  They had legal permits and stayed within the distances that the permits required them to, I believe it was 1,000 feet.  More and more states are putting laws into place about the distance people must stay away from funeral services.  The Church may be full of crazies, but they are not stupid and do follow the letter of the law. 

The one thing that I have always kept in mind during this case was the fact that I have become involved in going to protests and want my view points to be heard.  As an example here are some comments on Huffington Post on this case:

I blame hate speech for the GOP being so radicalize­d right now.



Of course, this SCOTUS rules in favor of right wing hate speech. Why would we expect this group to actually come down in favor of common sense. Funny how first amendment protection­s are no longer extended to journalist­s and whistleblo­wers.
 
I am so ready for Hate Speech laws.



Gee, maybe the Church is Right.



As much as I hate what these people have to say, which is quite disgusting­, I agree with this decision..­.free speech is free speech, no matter how vile, stupid, and racist. See the Tea Party and many in the conservati­ve party.

 The problem is if I am unwilling to stand for their right to speech and to protest mine will be taken away next.  Giving them the right to protest is in no way endorsing what they say, it is just protecting my rights to do the same.  If Westboro's right to protest was taken away, someone would be coming for the Tea Party next.  Freedom is not free, even the speech you find offensive has the same protections. 

An Apology Made. A Lesson Learned? Maybe not

Claire McCaskill apologizes for her staffers calling the police on tea party protesters on July 17th.


“I still regret the way we handled the protest, and hope that all those that want to express themselves feel free to protest peacefully at our office anytime. We will make every effort to meet with your representatives and hear your concerns. While we did talk to 7 folks on Friday, I wish we could have greeted everyone at the beginning and brought part of the group in for a meeting right away. I think we learned from Friday and will do better in the future. In return I hope those that are protesting refrain from banging on the windows and doors continuously. Thanks so much.”


Hey Claire, if your staff didn't lock the doors, draw the blinds, and refuse to talk to them they wouldn't have been knocking on the doors!! There is a little something in this country called the Constitution, we have the right to protest. It is not so much to ask that our representatives actually listen to our concerns, we do pay your staff's salary. Hey, we pay yours too!!

You work for me. It may be a good idea to remember that.