Just In Case You Were Unclear of NJ Teen Motives in Suing Her Parents

Oh my.  Ms. Rachel posted this on her Facebook fan page.  Education for Rachel.

“Suburban baby boomer types are the spoiled lot, they make massive amount of money a year, they are used to flying to luxury destinations when they want, and buy things that they don’t need, people should be inclined to see things Rachel’s way.  We have been stunned by the financial greed of modern parents who are more concerned with retiring into some fantasy world rather than provide for their children’s college and young adult years. In today’s economy there are no more meaningful jobs and without family help it’s usually military or bust. We see parents like this every day, children were always an accessory to them and nothing more, once that accessory grew up and went out of fashion, much like a marriage that people allegedly commit to, the child becomes a throwaway, that’s just how it is.”

Really?  How dare parents save for retirement?  What kind of monsters are they?  Go ahead and read the page, it is all me, me, me, and more me.  She talks about herself in the third person.

She may have legal standing with her college fund as they are usually set up in the child's name, but apparently that isn't enough for this young woman.  She wants 100% of education funded.  It just amazes that the adults in her life are funding not only this behavior, but this mindset.  What are these parents teaching their own children?  I guess if one of this family's kids commits a crime they can use the Affluenza defense.

I do have one question for Ms. Rachel, if there are no more meaningful jobs why bother to spend the money on an education, you can just then sue for your family to support the rest of your life, right?  Oh yeah, you want to party for a few years.

The Arizona Bill Doesn’t Say What You or the Media Thinks It Says

Not that it should be a surprise, but the media is calling Arizona's 1062 Bill "Anti-Gay", discrimination, a return back to Jim Crow and other such nonsense.  The bill isn't any such thing.  The legislation that passed does one thing and one thing only.  It expands who gets covered under religious liberty claims under the law in terms of lawsuits.

Today the law in Arizona the law only covers you if somehow the government is involved in the preceding.  This expands it so if a private business or a church gets sued they can claim they are exercising their religious free will.

Section 41-1493 of the Arizona Revised Statutes regulates who can claim religious freedom or exercise thereof as a defense in a lawsuit.

Senate bill 1062 revises that law by expanding the definition of who is a person to "any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity", and allows for religious-freedom lawsuits "regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.

Nowhere in this legislation does it say that you can hang a sign in your storefront refusing service.  It simply allows a business owner or a church to claim that they are exercising their right to their religious beliefs and a judge can't throw that out as a non-defense.  It will be allowed to be heard by a jury and they get to decide if that defense has merit or not.

People behave as if somehow the rights of one person automatically trumps the rights of another.  They don't.  Rights are given to all people.  There is no doubt that gay marriage is a topic that is virtually impossible to bridge the deep divides.  But lets say for instance a person who is divorced by no desire of their own.  Their spouse packed up and left after deciding they didn't want to be married anymore.  Most states today have no fault divorces so it is very likely that can just file and be divorced in relatively short order.  The spouse that was left is a practicing Catholic.  Over time they rebuild their lives and meet someone new.  They decide they want to get married again.  By Catholic doctrine they cannot be married in the church.  Should they be able to sue under the grounds they are being discriminated against because they are divorced?  Shouldn't the Catholic Church be able to walk into a courtroom and say this goes against their teaching and doctrines without being labeled bigot?

I, for the life of me, can't figure out why a couple would want to force a business to work with them when they don't want to.  Especially for something as important as a wedding.  This is a day that to a Christian is a sacrosanct covenant with God.  You are not just making that vow to each other, but you are making that vow to God himself.  You can disagree with that premise all you like.  It doesn't make it less relevant or real to a person who takes that seriously.

We have already seen a business taken to court for not wanting to participate in something they view as sinful.  A lawsuit is being filed in England right now to force the Church of England to perform Gay Marriages even the law has put in protections to guard that from happening.  We all know all too clearly what happens when a person speaks up about their religious beliefs that gay marriage is sinful.  They get called a bigot.  It never occurs to the person doing that name calling that they may be the ones who are bigots.  That they are the ones forcing another to go against deeply held beliefs and trying to force them to accept their choice to get married to someone of the same-sex.  No it is just the other way around.  It is just the Christian who is the bigot.  It is never anyone else.

I am not saying that the whole "agree to disagree" is something that is simple.  But it isn't as complicated as some make it sound when it comes to a baker, a photographer, a florist, or any other vendor that someone may use to celebrate their wedding day.  It is going to be a rare case indeed that another vendor that is more than happy to work with the couple isn't available and the only option is the one that feels this strongly about it.  Why would want to give your money to someone who is being forced to work with you?  Have you ever thought about what they could put in that cake?  I say that jokingly of course, but it could happen.

A business in a free market society should be allowed to decide for themselves who they work with and who they don't.  The consumers can then make their choices and decide if they want to give their money to a business who adheres to certain practices.  I certainly would never go to restaurant that hung a sign saying they wouldn't do business with a group of people for reasons such as skin color, religious background, or heritage.  I will take my money elsewhere.  That is the power that I possess.  Nor is that even a relevant issue when it comes to this piece of legislation.

A jury will get decide.  This law doesn't guarantee they will win, only that they will be heard.  One would think that gay activists would be happy to put this into a court of law.  They have done so many, many times over the past decade to force their will onto others.  Why are they upset about this?  This piece of legislation just took a page out of their playbook.  

Liberal Human Rights Icon Jesse Jackson Being Sued for Harassment

This whole thing is a more than a little smutty, but I couldn't resist posting on this.  It is too rich to pass up on.  An openly gay man, Tommy R. Bennet has filed a lawsuit against Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow PUSH Coalition.  The lawsuit has some eye opening claims:

However, the most explosive charges revolve around Jackson himself. First, Bennett claims that at an all-staff meeting in 2008, he requested an LGBT-themed table for the national convention—and was flatly denied. When Bennett questioned why there could not be a table, Jackson allegedly "cursed at Mr. Bennett in front of all of the staff, and Rev. Jackson was visibly upset during the rest of the meeting."



Bennett also claims that he had to escort women to Jackson's room and "clean up his room after sexual intercourse with women. Mr. Bennett believes he was forced to do these tasks due to his sexual orientation," adding that he had to escort women to such places as the Sheraton Hotel in New York and the Wynn Hotel and Resort in Las Vegas. Bennett claims that he let Jackson know that he "was uncomfortable cleaning up his hotel rooms, escorting women to his hotel room, being summoned to his hotel room after hours or packing his clothes."



Bennett then states that another time at the same hotel, Jackson summoned him at 1 a.m. to take notes. The complaint states, "When Mr. Bennett arrived, Rev. Jackson was dressed only in his briefs and a v-neck t-shirt." Bennett alleges Jackson was sexually excited. Asked by Windy City Times how he came to this conclusion, Bennett said, "I could tell by his look. His whole demeanor had changed. His breathing pattern had changed."



The complaint continues: "Before Mr. Bennett left, Rev. Jackson stated that white folks took the word 'gay' and gave the word its own definition. Rev. Jackson further stated that he was a real poor child in North Carolina and his name was first Jesse Burns, and then Jesse Robinson and then he became Jesse Jackson.


"Rev. Jackson stated that he played football and there was a gay high school teacher who took Rev. Jackson under his wings and told him that he needed education to go along with football. Rev. Jackson said, '[F]rom that gay teacher, I got a good grade, I got to use his car, I got ten dollars and I got my dick sucked.' Rev. Jackson said, '[T]hat's not gay, that is surviving.'" Bennett alleges this meant Rev. Jackson wanted sex, but that Bennett then left the room.

Why Jackson is considered such an Icon to people is beyond my comprehension.  He is a Reverend who cheats on his wife, this we know to be true because of the daughter born out of wedlock.  His flip flop on abortion only once he wanted to run for president.  No pro life democrat could ever get elected president.  His lies about the death of Dr. King and going on the Today show in blood stained shirt.  I have no way of knowing if these allegations are true or not, but with his track record I would say settling this case quietly would be the wisest course of action. 

Read the whole sorid story here. 

Healthcare Law Sees it's First Day of Court

Yesterday, the commonwealth of Virginia had its first court hearing on the case Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II v. Kathleen Sebelius.  The case rests on the federal government forcing an individual to purchase a product or face a fine is a violation of the constitution. 

The first issue that has to be decided does Virginia have status to file the suit.  Virginia passed a law protecting individuals from having to purchase health care insurance.  The law was done on the grounds of the tenth amendment, giving rights to the states. 

The judge that is hearing this case is Henry Hudson, a Bush appointee.  He has said he will be deciding if the case can move forward within 30 days.  The case will then be appealed at the district level and then should wind its way to the Supreme Court.  This case is moving at lightening speed.  The other cases filed by 20 other attorneys general is expected to be heard until September. 

Hudson did ask some pointed questions of both sides.  The attorney for the Commonwealth of Virginia argued that inactivity does not qualify as commerce;

"No post-modernist playing with language can turn inactivity into economy activity affecting interstate commerce,"

the judge asked the federal attorney to give an example of when the government has forced an individual to purchase a product in the past. 

The response was that since all people will use health care at some point;

Gershengorn responded that health care is unlike other products because everyone eventually consumes it. He said Congress was merely trying to regulate how it is paid for.

Via The Washington Post

I Double Dog Dare You - Go ahead Al, file that lawsuit

Rev. Al Sharpton has threatened to sue Rush Limbaugh in regards to his op-ed piece in Sunday’s issue of The Wall Street Journal. In the piece Rush was being Rush and went after Al Sharpton with little mercy.



I am personally not a huge fan of Rush. I find him more than a little arrogant and I don’t think that he can bring himself to admit when he is wrong. I listen to him from time to time; mainly when a big issue comes up just to hear his reaction. If one is being honest they would have to admit that Rush tends to be a race baiter. Now, that is very different than being a racist. There is no evidence that Rush is a racist. He has a shtick and being very provocative is part of that.


There is nothing that Rush does that Al Sharpton does not do as well. Sharpton has said some pretty horrible things over the years. He has spent decades trying to divide people instead of trying to bring them together. I grew up in Southern Connecticut, which is the same as being a suburb of New York City. So I have heard from Al Sharpton ever since I can remember. When he was walking around in his sweat suits and spewing racial hatred. I used to think he really disliked white people.


See I think that Rush needs to keep talking. Push Al to file that lawsuit. Wouldn’t you just love to have him under oath? I would really like to know when exactly he knew that Twana Brawley was a lair. Was it before or after all the racial tensions in New York City was coming to a boiling point? I would like to know exactly what he meant when he called Jews Diamond Merchants. Was it a put down? Because it certainly sounded like one at the time to me. I would like to know why he doesn’t feel any sense of responsibility for continuing the riots that occurred after the tragic accident in Crown Heights. I also would like to know why he felt the need to write the letter to the NFL at all. I heard him being interviewed the other night and he said that was just taking the side of the minority players. Did they ask him to get involved or did he just take it upon himself to get back at a man that has repeatedly made fun of him? And just for a few more laughs, I would really like to know why he feels that he speaks for the poor when he has in the past hawked himself for pay day loan companies. That is something that never really was in the news. I have insomnia issues and saw a commercial of his and was shocked and appalled that he would do something like that and then have the audacity to say he speaks for the poor and under-privileged people. If he truly felt that way would he take money from an organization that preys on the poor to make huge profits?


There is an old Chinese curse – May you get what you wish for. So go ahead Al, file that lawsuit. Rush has plenty of money. He can hire the best attorneys in the country. I personally would pay money to watch him under oath during depositions. Seriously, someone could make a fortune if that were put on pay for view. How much would you pay to watch him being deposed?