Category Archives: Socialism
Watch the video here: http://barbwire.com/2014/04/09/shocking-video-attacked-gay-stapo/
The message is clear: if you oppose same-sex “marriage,” you must be shut down, you must be punished … by fascists who are unwilling to allow you to have a different opinion, to allow you the freedom to disagree with them.
These people are engaging in appalling criminal activities across the nation with no response from law enforcement authorities.
Can you afford Fred DuVal for four years as governor of Arizona?
Can your family budget endure the higher cost of living that comes with Democrats in office?
Are you ready to hand over more of your constitutional freedom to a Democrat?
Are you ready to experience less control over your own life?
Are you ready to pay higher taxes?
Are you willing to let a Democrat governor get between you and your doctor?
And endure even more regulation of and interference with your personal life?
And kiss your vacations good-bye?
Is our state government still not big enough yet?
Fred DuVal is a member of the Party of Control, which wants to exert greater and greater control over your personal life. The Party of Control could not care less about the Constitution and your freedom; it will do whatever it can get away with.
DuVal is running for governor this fall. Don’t let him win. Stay free.
Reminder to Democrats: you need to pay your fair share of taxes.
Unity. It’s the elusive quest for Republican leaders locally and nationally.
Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in a radio interview at last week’s Conservative Political Action Committee convention that he’s seeking unity in the party.
And just recently I read a blog by the outgoing leader of the Republican legislative district in Scottsdale. He listed the accomplishments of his time as district chairman, thanked those who had helped him, and expressed regret at his inability to gain party unity.
To these men’s credit, they tried to do the impossible. Anyone striving to achieve unity in the GOP — at any level — is biting off more than he/she can chew.
The big stumbling block, which they don’t seem to articulate publicly, is the sanctity of human life. Party base Republicans defend it. The official Republican platform recognizes it.
But pro-abortion Republicans will not honor the pro-life plank of the GOP platform. It’s as invisible to them as the Constitution is to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and B. Hussein Obama.
Respect for life and a lack of respect for human life are diametrically opposed positions. They are completely irreconcilable.
Pro-life voters will never vote for abortion supporters. Abortion advocates do not vote for pro-life candidates.
In fact, it was abortion-advocate RINOs in Scottsdale who put Janet Napolitano in office as governor several years ago. They refused to vote for the conservative candidate, Matt Salmon. Napolitano over-performed in the Scottsdale legislative district more than any of the other 29 districts in Arizona.
It was around the time of that 2002 governor’s election between Salmon and Napolitano that I attended the monthly RINO meeting in Scottsdale. And it was scary. Leftist RINO state Senator Randall Gnant stood up and railed against Salmon. Now state Senator Michele Reagan was stumping for increased gambling in the state. The RINO chairwoman praised state Rep. Carolyn Allen — a self-described Planned Parenthood activist — as a “model” lawmaker.
I went home that night shaking my head, and I wrote a blog titled “Wasting Away again in RINOville: Searching for My Lost GOP.”
But the RINOs say we have to have a big tent! Well the pro-abortion Republicans would rather stand in the rain than stand with pro-life Republicans under the big tent.
So, good luck to all you Republican leaders thinking you’re going to bridge that rift over the issue of human life. But a word to the wise: if you do not stand for the sanctity of human life, all else is moot. As long as presidential candidates think they can do the soft-shoe shuffle away from the life issue — yes, you John McCain, Mitt Romney and Bob Dole — Republicans will not control the White House, will not control judicial nominations. You leaders must begin at the proper starting point, the GOP platform section on “The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life”:
Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of ndependence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the nonconsensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion and permitted States to extend health care coverage
to children before birth. We urge Congress to strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by enacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties on healthcare providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery where the death of the infant is intended. We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions – gender discrimination in its most lethal form—and to protect from abortion unborn
children who are capable of feeling pain; and we applaud U.S. House Republicans for leading the effort to protect the lives of pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia. We call for a ban on the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research.
We support and applaud adult stem cell research to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. We also salute the many States that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation. We seek to protect young girls from exploitation through a parental consent requirement; and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy. We salute those who provide them with counseling and adoption alternatives and empower them to choose life, and we take comfort in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.
In conclusion, we need Republicans who will fight the Party of Control Freaks tooth and nail over important issues — starting with life and moving on from that crucial starting point.
We appreciate Gov. Jan Brewer’s signature on numerous pro-life bills. But we’re glad to see her moving on from the governorship and what would have been a frivolous move to challenge for a questionable third term.
Brewer’s cave-ins to ObamaCare and to radical leftist attacks on religious freedom have greatly damaged her legacy. She will be remembered more for aligning with the McCain-Kyl cabal and the RINO path than anything truly conservative. So it’s time for her to move on, move out of the way, and allow a true Republican conservative to compete for the governor’s office.
Her veto of SB1062 at the urging of leftists, RINOs and the left-stream media was a pitiful sight to behold. It won’t be forgotten by Christians and conservatives who expected more from Brewer.
And in the end, it was McCain and RINOs calling the shots more than Brewer. They align closely with leftists and the party of excessive control — fighting the Party of Freedom all along the way.
We hope for better days ahead from the office of a new governor who is truly devoted to freedom.
Dedicated to Channels 3, 5, 10, 12, NPR, CNN, and the Arizona Republic, East Valley Tribune, and Arizona Daily Star: Dumb, Uneducated, and Eager to Deceive
By Mollie Hemingway, The Federalist
In the aftermath of the abominable media coverage of Arizona’s religious liberty bill, an editor shared his hypothesis that journalists care about freedom of speech and of the press because they practice them. And journalists don’t care about freedom of religion because they don’t.
But one of the most interesting things about modern media’s deep hostility toward the religious, their religions, and religious liberty in general is that press freedom in America is rooted in religion.
But perhaps we don’t understand that the members of the jury ruled in favor of press freedom because of their belief in the foundational importance of religion and religious liberty. The Zenger press freedom case was a “disputation on truth and on how truth is revealed to man,” noted David Paul Nord in 2006′s “A History of American Newspapers and Their Readers.” This is another way of saying “religion.” In the Cato letters printed in Zenger’s New York Weekly Journal, it was argued that each individual had not just the right but the duty to seek truth in his own way. From the book (emphasis mine):
“Every man’s religion is his own,” Cato declared, “nor can the religion of any man, of what nature or figure soever, be the religion of another man, unless he also chooses it; which action utterly excludes all force, power or government.”
The media now call people who agree with this notion “bigots” or “Jim Crow” types. Sometimes they’re more nuanced and just write shockingly biased articles about religious liberty issues. (My favorite was the time a media outlet — Religion News Service, of all places — defiantly put scare quotes around “religious liberty” and then defended the obnoxious practice.)
Anyway, back when individual reason and conscience were the way to divine truth, the authority of human law could never be absolute. Nord wrote that Americans have been “strangely intolerant libertarians, often suppressing individual liberties in the name of a more transcendent freedom.” Or we used to be, at least. Now we hear from some of media’s biggest elites that transcendent freedoms are to be obliterated in favor of individual liberties, and that opposition to this notion is the real enemy. More on that in a bit.
The First Amendment begins with religious liberty because (and even our non-traditionally religious Founders agreed with this), all freedom of expression — speech, press, assembly, etc. — is rooted in the importance of man determining truth according to his own conscience.
So What’s That Have To Do With Our Modern Media?
Moving forward nearly 300 years, we have a press that loathes and works actively to suppress this religious liberty, as confident in being on the “right side of history” as they are ignorant of natural rights, history, religion and basic civility.
A broad religious liberty bill — renamed by a juvenile and nakedly activist press as “anti-gay” — gives us a good opportunity to see this dynamic in action.
Perhaps a framework for understanding the truth-avoiding goat rodeo the media participated in is in order. Here’s one provided by Jon Swerens, which he calls the “OOOOOPSI” model:
Opportunity: First, we need a hot-button event that is a proper catalyst for the cycle. Recent examples were supplied by Chick-fil-A, Hobby Lobby, Susan G. Komen, and now, Arizona’s proposed law. Outrage: Next, those on the opposite side of the culture wars make a lot of noise about “fairness” and “bigotry” and “tolerance.” Maybe they have a point, or maybe not, but it’s an important step in the news cycle. Opposition: Then, the national media by and large adopts the definitions brought to them by the outraged. For example, in this week’s Arizona story, the media labeled the bill “anti-gay,” without the scare quotes. Such labeling was a tremendous victory for the outraged. Oversimplification: As a part of its coverage, the media fails to add any nuance to the debate or closely examine the actual facts of what’s being argued, preferring to cover the horse race of two competing interests beating each other up. Overreach: At some point, a mainline media outlet gets too cocky and goes a step too far in its boosterism. Other media momentarily shrink back in embarrassment. Pendulum: Prompted by this misstep, a few media commentators rub their chins and publish thoughtful analysis pieces that ask if everyone is being a little too hard on the accused. The accused is still wrong, mind you, but we can be nicer about it. Silence: After this, coverage ceases as the nation’s attention runs elsewhere. Introspection: Finally, months later, on a Sunday news program, journalists will gather and ruminate about how they unfairly overstated one side of the debate. They pledge to do better next time.
Let’s agree to pretend that the media ever hit the Introspection stage and let’s also set aside the Opportunity and Outrage issues. Note the key point in “Opposition,” which is that the media adopt the labels of one side in a dispute. This couldn’t be more common, which explains why “religious liberty” gets scare quoted but “same-sex marriage” does not. In most cases, the media only scare quote those things they think are highly debatable or untrue. So even though religious liberty is fairly well ensconced in the Constitution and in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and what not, it gets scare quotes. “Abortion rights,” which opponents believe is an oxymoron since no one actually has the right to take the life of another, even if the Supreme Court of the United States say otherwise? Well, missy, that’s settled law. And if you’re confused about it, you can ask the Susan G. Komen Foundation what we in the media do to people who don’t toe the line. We destroy them… for fun. On this issue, we help our friends (Wendy Davis, Kermit Gosnell) and we destroy our enemies (War on Women, anyone?).
Or take marriage, which natural marriage supporters believe is a euphemism, more or less, for “penis+vagina=elaborate consequences.” So for them, “same-sex marriage” is an ontological impossibility, or at the very least an issue on which some thought should go into the consequences of redefining that equation. After the media malpractice on this issue, one wonders if we’ve been fully brainwashed away from even understanding this topic in any way. Basically, some people, known colloquially as “all people throughout all space and time in all religions and lands until 15 minutes ago,” believed that marriage was a nice way of saying “men and women are different and complementary and this is the way we organize their relationship in all its complexity, including all the norms and benefits and dangers that occur when a penis enters a vagina.” Marriage used to be the way we said that, more or less. And the penis and vagina parts are actually key to this entire shebang. See: human history. Or, if you are in any way confused about this, ponder how your own existence came about. Hint: penis and vagina. In any event, it’s easier to remove scare quotes, adopt the language, and hunt down and vilify all those who disagree.
For a particularly crafty look, here’s CNN redefining religious liberty not as “religious liberty” but as the “‘freedom’ to discriminate.” Brilliant. Even if, you know, terrifying and Orwellian. And I do mean Orwellian. Here he is on the matter:
At any given moment, there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas, which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that, or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it . . . [And] anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, whether in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.
Particularly Egregious Idiocy
In this case, wholesale adoption of activist language is particularly egregious. What Arizona was considering was known as a RFRA bill. The original federal legislation was adopted after a bad Supreme Court ruling delivered by Antonin Scalia that limited religious freedom for Native Americans who smoke peyote as part of their religion. Congress realized this was a big problem and so they authored the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, introduced by none other than Chuck Schumer. From Wikipedia:
The Smith decision outraged the public. Many groups came together. Both liberal (like the American Civil Liberties Union) and conservative groups (like the Traditional Values Coalition) as well as other groups such as the Christian Legal Society, the American Jewish Congress, and the National Association of Evangelicals joined forces to support RFRA, which would reinstate the Sherbert Test, overturning laws if they burden a religion. The act, which was Congress’s reaction to the Lyng and Smith cases, passed the House unanimously and the Senate 97 to 3 and was signed into law by U.S. President Bill Clinton.
And for those who worry about government encroachment against religious liberty, the bill has turned out to be a godsend. Hundreds of Americans of various religions have used RFRA to have even an opportunity to fight back against government violations against religious liberty. States have also adopted RFRA legislation, to help navigate the difficult borders of religious liberty vs. government action.
Have you heard of the Little Sisters of the Poor? Their only chance in their fight against the government is RFRA.
And so Arizona was tweaking its own RFRA statutes to expand in a couple of areas. A group of 12 law professors, some of whom support same-sex marriage and some of whom weren’t even sure the legislation was a good idea, but all of whom are religious liberty experts, tried to speak into the media-induced blindness regarding this bill:
SB1062 would amend the Arizona RFRA to address two ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation under other RFRAs. It would provide that people are covered when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business, and it would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion.
Most RFRA cases don’t deal with the sudden clash between religious liberty and same-sex “rights,” but some do. And even though most Americans probably wish tolerance were a two-way street — where some people need to work to tolerate those attracted to members of the same sex while others need to tolerate those with different religious beliefs — I think current jurisprudence favors the sentiment expressed by Chai Feldblum, a legal scholar and gay-rights activist later appointed by President Obama to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
“There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”
Outside of American newsrooms, Feldblum’s views aren’t universally shared. In fact, some find that in a choice between sacrificing religious liberty and expanding gay rights, they might go the other way. There are always conflicts with religious liberty — our first freedom. And they’re difficult to navigate. Religious liberty — and having the freedom to determine truth without government force — was what the Zenger trial was all about and no one is (yet) claiming that it was actually about bigots against gay rights. Of the hundreds of RFRA cases, I’d be surprised if more than a tiny handful had to do with gay anything, in fact. We do know that no reporter investigated how many RFRA cases involve gay issues. Is it greater than zero? I don’t think we know.
Either way, a broad religious liberty bill, one that in its national version was introduced by Chuck Schumer and signed by Bill Clinton after passing with overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, becomes, in the high-brow parlance of the Associated Press and the Washington Post, “anti-gay.”
By this standard, all legislation could be anti-gay. How many gay people are harmed by restrictions on gun rights? Ergo, gun control is anti-gay. How many unborn gays are terminated via abortion? Pro-choice laws are anti-gay. How many taxes are levied on gay people? All taxes are anti-gay. It only makes sense to call religious liberty anti-gay if you think that the only people in America are that tiny fraction of gay people that might ever be involved in suits where RFRA is argued. And even if you took that position, RFRA still wouldn’t be “anti-gay” since, as that rag-tag group of religious liberty professors put it:
But nothing in the amendment would say who wins in either of these cases. The person invoking RFRA would still have to prove that he had a sincere religious belief and that state or local government was imposing a substantial burden on his exercise of that religious belief. And the government, or the person on the other side of the lawsuit, could still show that compliance with the law was necessary to serve a compelling government interest. As a business gets bigger and more impersonal, courts will be come more skeptical about claims of substantial burden on the owner’s exercise of religion. And as a business gets bigger, the government’s claim of compelling interest will become stronger.
Of course, we can safely assume that none of the reporters or editors who promulgated the “anti-gay” rhetoric had read the legislation, however brief it was (all of two pages). By way of example, see what the New York Times deceitfully wrote here with the quote above:
“The measure would have allowed business owner [sic] to refuse to serve gay people and others if doing so ran counter to their religious beliefs.”