Thursday, April 30, 2015

Why Is SCOTUS Even Considering Same-Sex Marriage?

U.S. Supreme Court building.
U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Since the very definition of marriage is up for grabs at the U.S. Supreme Court this week — SCOTUS entertained oral arguments Tuesday on a number of cases consolidated under the central issue of the un-constitutionality of states' ability to deny gay marriage — we thought this an appropriate point to interject reason into the debate, strengthened by an understanding of history — Constitutional history. Let’s start with the basics: The Constitution of the United States has nothing to say about marriage, “gay” or otherwise. What does that mean?

Well, if you know nothing about civics, it means nothing. Unfortunately, that’s the take the religiously zealous supporters of same-sex marriage are trying to foist off on the Supremes this week. Their approach, of course, doesn’t admit to this, or even begin to touch on the truly core issue — Federalism — for the same reason abortionist supporters of Roe v. Wade did not: They would otherwise lose. Let’s walk through this Matrix together, Neo.

The Constitution is the foundational legal document governing our nation. For almost 200 years it served as the backbone behind the body of laws under which the lowliest individual to the U.S. President operated. All of that changed with the Progressive Movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s, FDR’s New Deal and a host of other progressive assaults on the concept of the Rule of Law. Wiser-than-the-rest-of-us progressives rejected this idea in favor of the arrogation that some people (read: them) are better suited to rule than others (read: you), and accordingly pushed to make the Constitution a “living, breathing document” (read: changeable to suit progressives' needs). The practical upshot of this “breathing” is that Rule of Law is all but a dead letter in our nation. But we digress.

Read the rest:
John J. Bastiat: Why Is SCOTUS Even Considering Same-Sex Marriage? — The Patriot Post

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Rioters And Looters Belong In Jail, In The Morgue Or On The Business End Of A Nightstick

Since Obama became President and started subtly supporting race-baiting and cop-hating, mob
violence is back in style.

Hordes of Occupy thugs took over parks, blocked traffic and vandalized property while cops were ordered to leave them alone. Ferguson was ripped to pieces while the Democratic governor held back the National Guard. BlackLivesMatter asshats have been blocking traffic across the country. There have been smaller violent outbursts in LA, Oakland and Brooklyn and now Baltimore is under siege by roving gangs of punks.

There’s a simple reason this is happening and it’s not criminals getting killed after confrontations with the police or the general animosity that liberals have worked so hard to develop between some black Americans and the cops -- although that obviously plays a role in setting the stage for all of this violence.

In truth, people who are scum riot and loot in towns like Ferguson and Baltimore for a very simple reason: they enjoy doing it and they believe they can get away with it.

The people who are in the streets rioting and looting, as opposed to peaceful protesters, business owners or just law-abiding citizens, are human garbage. For them, it’s FUN to throw a brick through a window, beat someone up or steal everything they can carry from a local business. It’s COOL to turn over a police car. It’s EXHILIARATING to set something on fire or destroy a restaurant.
Normally, they don’t do that sort of thing, but it’s not because they think it’s wrong or respect other people’s property. To the contrary, they don’t do it because they don’t believe they can get away with it.

However, when there’s chaos in the streets and hundreds, if not thousands of other people are around, they can ramp up the savagery and hope to get lost in the crowd while the police are too busy to deal with them.

Even if they do get caught, liberals have started habitually excusing rioting and looting. That further encourages these thugs to believe that even if they do get caught, they’ll get off light.

You want to put an end to rioting in this country?

Then you start by recognizing that Job #1 of a government is to protect law-abiding citizens from disorder and violence. Whatever “rights” a piece of paper says you have are irrelevant if your store is being burned, your daughter is being raped and you can’t walk the streets without potentially being attacked by a mob.

Once you accept that premise, then you encourage the police or if necessary, the National Guard, to use as little force as necessary, but as much force as needed to put an end to any rioting and looting.

Read the rest of this article:
Rioters And Looters Belong In Jail, In The Morgue Or On The Business End Of A Nightstick - John Hawkins - Page 2

Monday, April 27, 2015

The Forgotten History of Gay Marriage

Saints Sergius and Bacchus. 7th Century icon. ...
Saints Sergius and Bacchus. 7th Century icon. Officers of the Roman Army in Syria who were tortured to death for their refusal to worship Roman gods. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Republicans and other opponents of gay marriage often speak of marriage as being a 2,000 year old tradition (or even older). Quite apart from the fact that the definition of marriage has changed from when it was a business transaction, usually between men, there is ample evidence that within just Christian tradition, it has changed from the point where same-sex relationships were not just tolerated but celebrated.

In the famous St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai, there is an icon which shows two robed Christian saints getting married. Their ‘pronubus’ (official witness, or “best man”) is none other than Jesus Christ.

The happy couple are 4th Century Christian martyrs, Saint Serge and Saint Bacchus — both men.
Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that “we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life.” More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, Saint Serge is described as the “sweet companion and lover (erastai)” of St. Bacchus.

Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

Yale historian John Richard Boswell discovered this early Christian history and wrote about it nearly 20 years ago in “Same Sex Unions In Pre-Modern Europe“ (1994).

In ancient church liturgical documents, he found the existence of an “Office of Same Sex Union” (10th and 11th century Greek) and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century Slavonic).

He found many examples of:
  • A community gathered in a church
  • A blessing of the couple before the altar
  • Their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages
  • The participation of a priest
  • The taking of the Eucharist
  • A wedding banquet afterwards
A 14th century Serbian Slavonic “Office of the Same Sex Union,” uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Boswell documented such sanctified unions up until the 18th century.

In late medieval France, a contract of “enbrotherment” (affrèrement) existed for men who pledged to live together sharing ‘un pain, un vin, et une bourse’ – one bread, one wine, and one purse.

Other religions, such as Hinduism and some native American religions, have respect for same-sex couples weaved into their history.

When right-wing evangelical Christians talk about “traditional marriage,” there is no such thing.

This article was written by Paul Canning and was originally posted at Care2. If you like it, visit their site to read more on this and other subjects. Care2 is a community of 26 million standing together for good. People are making world-changing impact with Care2, starting petitions and supporting each other's campaigns - from cracking down on ivory sales on ebay, to overcoming discriminatory school policies, to finding justice for acts of animal abuse.

The Forgotten History of Gay Marriage | Care2 Causes

Friday, April 24, 2015

Friday Funnies







Top 10 Reasons to Vote Democrat

#10.  I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry  whatever I want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd. 

#9. I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon at 15% isn't. 


#8. I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would. 


#7. I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.


#6. I vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves. I am also thankful that we have a 911 service that gets police to your home in order to identify your body after a home invasion. 


#5. I vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy. 


#4. I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away Social Security from those who paid into it.


#3. I vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrat Party sees fit. 


#2. I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.


And, the #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think  it's better to pay billions of dillars for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some  endangered beetle, gopher, or fish here in America. We don't care about the beetles, gophers, or fish in those  other countries.

Thursday, April 23, 2015

The Perfect Responses To Any Muslim Or Liberal Accusing You Of Islamophobia

Photos of the Sunday, August 22, 2010 Park51 (...
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Unless you’re a Kool-Aid drinking, delusional bleeding heart, chances are that you’ve shattered the liberal bubble that Islam is the religion of peace and most likely suffered backlash for it. However, there are some simple, truthful responses that even the most back biting leftist can’t deny.

You’ve been called a racist, bigot, hater, and even xenophobe, but the proof is in the ideological pudding, and by the end of this article you’ll be able to provide fact for everyone from brainless Obama zombies to taqiyya laying Islamists.

While everyone loves to win an argument, this is much more than a social media forum debate. Islam has successfully turned over 90 nations into Ottoman Empire regimes tyrannized by Muhammadan Sharia law. Basic human rights are at stake as the most devout Islamists openly warn us that their goal is the West.

So, what do you say when you’re hit with the tough questions and accusations that you’re twisting the truth about the world’s most dangerous ideology? Citizen Warrior has compiled a list of perfect responses to the most common and most difficult questions with which Islamosympathizers could hope to trap you.

(Click on each link for the full response.)

“It’s only a small minority who are violent extremists.”
Even a small minority of 1.3 billion people is still a lot of people. Yes, the number of Muslims following Mohammad’s command to “kill unbelievers wherever you find them” may be small, but a much larger percentage believes in the political purpose of Islam and is working toward that goal in other ways besides terrorism. However, 270 million non-Muslims killed by this so-called small minority is something to be concerned with, don’t you agree?

“You’re a racist/bigot.”
It is “criticizing a religious doctrine” and it is also “political criticism” — two perfectly legitimate activities in a free country. Muslims come in all races and hail from every nationality, so, what race is Islam? Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Seyran Ates, and Francis Bok all hail from different countries and are of different races, and yet they speak out against Islam. Some of them are former Muslims. Are they racist as well? To this day, Muslims own over 14 million black slaves under Sharia law. That’s the real racism.

Read the rest:
The Perfect Responses To Any Muslim Or Liberal Accusing You Of Islamophobia

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Articles: Obama's Three Premises

 
Based on President Obama's actions of the past seven years, one can surmise that his worldview is based on three major premises.  His economic perspective is deliberately aimed at weakening the United States.  Thus, despite the disastrous past history of mandated government directives that forced banks to provide sub-prime loans, Obama and company are at it again forcing banks to engage in risky loans. In "separate new reports to Congress, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reveal Obama regulators are pressuring them to back high-risk home loans for 'very low-income' borrowers."  Both mortgage companies are being "forced to accept mortgages with as little as 3% down."

And most telling, they must "[y]ield disparate results based on the race of the borrower." If that were not enough, one learns that the government is allowing "lenders to use unemployment benefits as source of income." And these mandates will not expire until 2019.

So here is a recipe for unmitigated economic disaster.

Another of the downward economic spirals produced by Obama and his minions is the looming student loan crisis, which is being manufactured and perpetuated by this White House.  Twenty-seven percent of student loans are delinquent, of about one trillion dollars of student loan debt owed to the federal government.  And while Obama continues to harangue about the difficulties that students have concerning mounting college costs, the real problem is that "in 2010 Obama eliminated the federal guaranteed loan program,” which "let private lenders offer student loans at low interest rates."  But as with everything that Obama touches, now there is only one place to get a loan -- big government.  Consequently "federal direct student loan debt has climbed by more than $100 billion."  But Obama, the compassionate, has made it increasingly easier for students to avoid paying back student loans in full; thus, it is a problem that American taxpayers will have to shoulder -- along with the $18 trillion+ debt, courtesy of Obama.

Obama's second premise is that America must pay mightily for its success and its hubris.  To that end, Obama concedes all safety precautions that a leader would insist upon in dealing with "Death-to-America"-chanting Iran.  But one need only consider Obama's reaction to the 9-11-2001 attacks to understand his moral compass and his antipathy to the United States.  On September 19, 2001 a story ran in the Hyde Park Herald containing then-State-Senator Barack Obama's response to the 9-11 events.  Obama had this to say of the heinous actions of that day
We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.
So with 3,000 Americans dead, and with fears of more terror to emerge, Obama was concerned with the murderers’ "despair."  Not once did he use the term “terrorism.”  Not once did he speak of an ultimatum response towards the  jihadists. Instead this Islam-educated man seeks compromise and a meeting of the minds with people who in twenty minutes just changed the entire landscape of this country.   Instead Americans are supposed to "imagine the sufferings" of murderers.

Read more:
Articles: Obama's Three Premises

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Fast Food Workers: You Don’t Deserve $15 an Hour to Flip Burgers, and That’s OK

Foto de una carretera en la cual se destacan a...
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Written by Matt Walsh

Dear fast food workers,

It’s come to my attention that many of you, supposedly in 230 cities across the country, are walking out of your jobs today and protesting for $15 an hour. You earnestly believe — indeed, you’ve been led to this conclusion by pandering politicians and liberal pundits who possess neither the slightest grasp of the basic rules of economics nor even the faintest hint of integrity — that your entry level gig pushing buttons on a cash register at Taco Bell ought to earn you double the current federal minimum wage.

I’m aware, of course, that not all of you feel this way. Many of you might consider your position as Whopper Assembler to be rather a temporary situation, not a career path, and you plan on moving on and up not by holding a poster board with “Give me more money!” scrawled across it, but by working hard and being reliable. To be clear, I am not addressing the folks in this latter camp. They are doing what needs to be done, and I respect that.

Instead, I want to talk to those of you who actually consider yourselves entitled to close to a $29 thousand a year full time salary for doing a job that requires no skill, no expertise, and no education; those who think a fry cook ought to earn an entry level income similar to a dental assistant; those who insist the guy putting the lettuce on my Big Mac ought to make more than the Emergency Medical Technician who saves lives for a living; those who believe you should automatically be able to “live comfortably,” as if “comfort” is a human right.

Read the rest:
Fast Food Workers: You Don’t Deserve $15 an Hour to Flip Burgers, and That’s OK | TheBlaze.com