It's Our Own Damn Fault

When the Supreme Court made their ruling on gay marriage, those of us who spoke out against the Court even taking the case - let alone our disagreement with the actual ruling - warned that this type of thing would come.

We said that it wasn't going to stop with owners of private companies being forced to go against their religious beliefs.

We raised the alarm and predicted purely religious organizations would be targeted and smeared for not bowing down to a micro-minority but very vocal subset of society.

"You're crazy!" we were told.

"Homophobes!" we were called.

"Bigots! You just don't want equal rights!" they exclaimed.

We were ridiculed, belittled, excoriated by the Left for raising that alarm. Yet here we are, watching it happen exactly as we said it would.

Religious liberty is enumerated as our very FIRST Right in the Bill of Rights.  It comes before free speech, the right to bear arms, petition the government.

All of them come after the right to practice your religion as you see fit, provided that practice doesn't infringe on another's rights in any way.

The Founders held this right as sacrosanct, perhaps inviolable even, which is understandable given the tyranny they had just fought a long war to be rid of.

What makes this all the worse is that the Georgia law - and here's the really important part - only protected overtly religious organizations, like churches and charities. It had nothing whatsoever to do with private companies or individuals. The scope was limited, targeted for just that reason.

In this day and age, immorality is becoming increasingly acceptable to wider and wider swathes of people who don't seem to care what problems they cause for future generations as long as they get what they want RIGHT NOW and to Hell with anyone else.

I no longer recognize the America I once knew - the America where people had the freedom to do what they wanted, act how they wanted, be who they wanted to be regardless what society wanted and within the framework of the Rule of Law.

The age of the individual is over. The Rule of Law has ended. This "Great Experiment" in self-governance is dying a slow, painful, ignominious death and it's our own damn fault.

The lessons learned by, and from, the Founders have been all but forgotten and for that we should all be ashamed. ~ Hunter

The Old Man's Tears

I was walking through the park the other day when I came across an older gentleman sitting on a bench. Every time I walked by him, I noticed there were tears streaming silently down his stubbled cheeks.

On my third lap around the park, I decided to sit down and try to console the man. Perhaps he was mourning his wife or a child and the least I could do was sit with him for a spell.

"Sir," I said, sitting on the bench next to him. "Are you OK?"

He turned and looked at me, as if surprised that I even noticed him.

"Young man, I'm in mourning.

"My wife is healthy, and all my children and grandchildren are living happy and healthy lives, but still I mourn."

"A good friend?" I asked, thinking back to how I felt when a few of my friends had passed over the years.

"Oh, I wish it was that simple," he said, laughing bitterly.

"What else is there to mourn this much for?" I thought to myself.

"Son, let me tell you a short story.

"I fought in a war that freed a continent from evil and stopped the wholesale oppression and slaughter of a people only to see much the same thing here a home.

"I watched as a great man marched peacefully in far too many cities to bring equality and freedom to people long held as 'inferior.' In fact, I marched with him when I could, and was there in spirit when I couldn't.

"I worked hard to bring financial security for my family so that they would never know the deprivation we now know as the 'Great Depression.' For us, it was just 'hard times.'

"I've watched as people have come and gone, making unfulfilled promises along the way.

"I've wondered at the technological marvels and medical miracles our society has produced for all mankind - jet fighters and passenger jets, helicopters, prosthetic limbs, diseases cured. All of that brought about by free-thinking, freedom-loving people with a will to break from tradition and convention.

"I watched with fascination as mankind slipped free the bonds of Earth and traveled to the moon and focused their eyes on the stars.

"I watched with amusement as science chases God with intent to destroy Him, and laughed as He wriggled free of their grasp and created more of His wonders for them to study.

"I've seen evil come along on gilded wings, yet be rejected, defeated, when good people took a stand.

"I've seen more good than bad in my days here.

"And yet...." he trailed off, staring off into the distance.

As he had spoken, the tears had dried. Now, they returned full force.

"What?" I asked, spellbound. This man knew how to tell a story. "Why do you cry?"

"I don't weep for myself. I've had a long and mostly happy life.

"I don't cry for my friends, who are more like me than not.

"I don't cry even for you. You're old enough to have fought for the right things. Whether you did or not is immaterial - you should have.

"I weep because that which we have fought so long for, that which we have gained, we are losing! Worse, we are giving them away!

"What has happened to the only nation where the freedom to speak your mind is guaranteed? When did we devolve into a nation of sissies, afraid to hear a viewpoint opposite of our own?

"When did we decide that giving up our own rights was the 'safe' thing to do?

"I weep for the United States of America I used to know out of the fear that my grandchildren will never know what it means to be truly FREE." ~ Hunter

Free Speech: If We Lose That, America Is Done

Recently, the comedian Jerry Seinfeld declared that he would no longer perform on college campuses, joining Chris Rock and several others in that sentiment. Seinfeld says that the atmosphere of political correctness makes it impossible for comics to play a college. He's right.

 

This is the United States of America. The very first amendment to the Constitution, the cornerstone of our society, is the right to free speech. That guarantee was meant specifically to protect unpopular, possibly offensive, speech. There is no inherent obligation for others to listen to that speech, but the right of the speaker to say it is inviolable.

 

Or it used to be.

 

Today, we have "free speech zones" on college campuses, meaning that if you want to say something that might offend someone else you must be in one of those zones when you say it or face disciplinary measures. It isn't just private colleges with "free speech zones." Public colleges have them, as well as colleges that take our tax dollars.

 

Private institutions can, and should, have their own rules. If they want to ban free speech, it's within their rights to do so. They will eventually pay the price when people stop using their services, buying their products, etc.

 

The fact is that colleges and universities are fast becoming the places where individual freedoms and critical thought go to die, which is diametrically opposite what they should be.

Any public institution, or an institution that takes public money, should be the staunchest DEFENDERS of free speech anywhere on campus.

 

You may ask why I single them out specifically. That's easy. Using the liberal thought process, which is so ridiculously simple that an underachieving 2nd grader can follow it.

If the government is the guarantor of the fallacious "separation of Church and State" in that prayer and religious symbolism should not and cannot be on or in public properties, i.e., schools, courthouses, and other government buildings, and that's in keeping with the religious freedom portion of the 1st Amendment, should it not also follow that the government is the guarantor of the free speech portion of the same amendment on public lands?

 

Why one and not the other?

 

If we lose the freedom of speech, this nation is gone, and gone forever. We must take a stand against the tyranny of political correctness.

 

The time is now. ~ Hunter

 

 

The Cowardice of Moral Equivalency

For all those cowards - and I do mean cowards - like Juan Williams, Greta Van Susteren, Geraldo Rivera, and Bill O'Reilly, who believe that Pamela Gellar is somehow "responsible" for two lunatics driving at least 1000 miles to attack an art exhibition and cartoon contest, I have one thing to say. Do try to keep up...

The show Gellar put on is not the same as falsely yelling "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater, despite your clumsy attempts at conflating the two.

In the crowded theater scenario there is a reasonable expectation that people will be harmed as a result of an immediate panic in the theater. The person raising the false alarm is directly responsible for causing the panic and the harm.

In the United States, there is - and this is an important point - NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION that our words and/or expressions will incite someone to violence. You can protest that speech all you want with your own free speech, but the second you cross over into violence, you are the problem, not whatever it was that offended you.

Free speech is free speech. There are no qualifiers. It doesn't matter how offensive the words are, or who those words offend. If you don't understand this, if you don't support this, you couldn't care less about the freedoms upon which this nation was built. ~ Hunter

We Won This Round...

Just over $842,000 was raised in a GoFundMe campaign for Memories Pizza in Indiana.

The campaign was started to help the owners offset their losses after a local reporterette asked a HYPOTHETICAL question about catering a gay wedding and the owners started getting death threats, as well as at least one threat of arson and the pizzeria was forced to shut down, at least temporarily. All this from the ever-tolerant Left.

The answer to the hypothetical question was a resounding NO, they would not cater a gay wedding based on their religious beliefs. As the pizzeria has many prominent displays of Christianity in the store, the answer shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone.

They never said they didn't welcome or serve gay people in the actual restaurant. In fact, the woman went out of her way to say that they are indeed welcome to eat at the place.

With all the hubbub surrounding Indiana's now-gutted version of the R.F.R.A., and the cries of bigotry aimed at Christians who choose to stand on their religious principles, what's being lost is one very simple truth: there is a world of difference between providing a couple of slices of pizza (or a regular cake, or a photograph) to a gay person who walks into your establishment and contracting to cater, or bake for, or photograph a gay wedding. The former is mostly random, uncontrollable; the latter is not.

To accept and fulfil a contract to provide services for a wedding requires forethought and planning, and not something one does DURING THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. The other IS the normal course of business.

The Declaration of Independence, the document that paved the way for the creation of the greatest nation in history clearly states that man is endowed by our Creator with "certain unalienable rights." The Bill of Rights enumerates those rights.

The very first part of the very first amendment speaks of freedom of religion and the freedom to practice said religion. By definition, part of that religious exercise is the right to NOT participate in something - a gay wedding, for example - that is believed to be against the religion being exercised.

For the government to step in and FORCE a baker, photographer, or a caterer to provide their services for an event that's against the provider's religious beliefs violates the right to freely exercise their religion. What providing that service amounts to a tacit endorsement of that event.

The Left, while clamoring for supposed "equal rights," willfully and deliberately uses misdirection and misinformation to bully people into compliance with their worldview. An example of this is the number of people branding those who donated to the GoFundMe campaign "bigots" and "homophobes," completely overlooking the gay men and women WHO DONATED TO THE CAUSE.

Why is the Left so surprised when people have opinions differing from their collective opinion? Are we all supposed to walk in lockstep with one another? Are we not all capable of independent thought? Of making our own decisions based upon our own beliefs?

This utopia, this "perfect society" the Left seeks - where everyone thinks the same thoughts, eats the same food, drives the same cars - will NEVER exist. There are too many NATURAL variations in and amongst mankind for that to be possible, let alone man's natural inclination to be free, to decide for ourselves what's best for us.

There is definitely a growing support for gay marriage in this country, right or wrong. The Left, however, mistakes SUPPORT of gay marriage for ACTIVE PARTICIPATION in gay marriage. Forcing a business owner into providing services IS forcing an active participation.

And that's just plain wrong. ~ Hunter

Dear Israel and the American People

Dear Israel,

We the People of the United States of America do solemnly apologize for the actions of our so-called "leaders" with regard to this "framework" that might lead to a possibility of exploring the potential for maybe thinking about daydreaming about getting a nuclear deal done with Iran (after they have a weapon, naturally).

We're sorry you were sold out by King DingleBarry, but to be fair, he's been selling out the American people for 6 years now, so we're glad to finally have the company.

We the People still overwhelmingly support our only true ally in the Middle East, even if our media (read: demoKKKrat propaganda department) tries to make it seem otherwise. We are still proud still stand with you.

Signed with much regret,

We the People

*      *      *

To the American people (the ones who voted for the Petulant Pretender),

Way to go, low-information morons...

You elected a guy who is, in accordance with his only core belief, dedicated to the destruction of the United States as a world power. And you did it TWICE. The presidency isn't one of those things where you say, "I'll try anything twice, just to make sure I really didn't like it the 1st time."

Congratulations are in order for electing the one guy who could simultaneously spend more than all forty-three of his predecessors combined while making America the laughingstock of our enemies (and an embarrassment to our allies).

I've wondered what "leading from behind" really, truly meant since the day His Royal Lowness first uttered those words.

Now I know, and I tremble for my children's future - and the future of the United States of America...

No really, thanks a lot...

We are so screwed. ~ Hunter

 

Establishment And Free Exercise Thereof: What The First Amendment REALLY Is

I've never understood the mindset of people who claim that this isn't a Christian nation, or the religion was never meant to be part of government.

 

The "freedom of religion" part of the First Amendment is, in no way, a prohibition on religion in government. It is, however, a restriction on government in religion.

 

That restriction, known as the "establishment clause," means that the federal government cannot endorse a particular religion or sect over any other, nor can it require the people to worship a certain God, or require one to worship any God. A further prohibition on the establishment of its own religion, i.e., the Church of England, is intertwined with that.

 

The "free exercise" clause means exactly what it says - one is free to exercise one's religion freely, wherever and whenever one wants, provided that it does not endanger one's fellow citizens' lives. You can't hold Mass in the center lane of I-95, for example.

Separation of Church and State is an utter fallacy. It exists nowhere in our founding documents. The phrase itself is actually misquoted from a private letter Thomas Jefferson sent to the Danbury Baptist ministers responding to their fears that the U.S. government was about to choose an official religion. The actual phrase reads - "separation between Church and State."

 

That word "between" brings a whole new meaning to it, doesn't it?

 

What Jefferson meant - coincidentally, the over- and mis-used quote from the Treaty of Tripoli about the U.S. government not being founded on the Christian religion also means the same thing - that the Church (not religion) wasn't the government, as it was in so much of Europe at that time, therefore the government had no business or inclination to establish an official religion.

 

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black coined the phrase "separation of Church and State," taking liberties with the meaning of the Constitution, despite having a reputation of being a literalist. As a member of the KKK (reputedly "just" to get votes), Black was very accustomed to taking liberties with the Constitution, despite his vote against segregation in Brown v. Board of Education. For the record, Black was a veritable mass of contradictions.

 

To claim that religion and religious principles were never meant to be part of government is folly. Jefferson himself, a supposed atheist, attended Church services held in the Capitol Building, clearly disagreed with that sentiment.

 

Perhaps it's time to return to the vision of the Founders and Framers and stop thinking we know better what they meant than they did when they founded this nation and wrote the documents we're SUPPOSED to live by. ~ Hunter

 

 

It's Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion

I first wrote about the First Amendment a couple of years ago. I detailed how the phrase "separation of Church and State" not only does not exist anywhere in our founding documents, but was taken - out of context and not even quoted correctly - from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Baptist ministers in an attempt to alleviate their fears that the United States government was going to select an "official religion."

 

Given the recent signing into law of a bill in Indiana that, for all intents and purposes, simply says that the government of Indiana will not force a business owner to provide services to an event that conflicts with their religious beliefs, it bears repeating, as some people just don't get it.

 

Everyone walking this planet "discriminates" every day. It's a fact of life.

 

You spend your money at one store over another; you eat at McDonald's over Burger King, you drink beer "A" over beer "B." You use Exxon gas rather than BP. I could go on and on and on, but I hope you get the idea.

 

If you patronize a white-owned business rather than a similar but black-owned business, does that make you a racist? No...

 

If you go to a regular bar and not the local gay bar, does that make you a homophobe? No...

 

As far as I know, not a single case of this so-called discrimination has been an outright refusal of all goods and services to gay people. They've just been refusal to provide goods and services for things that the business owner disagrees with for religious reasons, AS IS THEIR RIGHT under the "free exercise" part of the First Amendment.

 

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion, nor was the First Amendment meant to protect government from religion. It's purpose was to protect religion from government, which is what this law was designed to remind you about...

 

But Hunter, wouldn't the ability to "discriminate" based on religious beliefs be forcing someone to participate in your religion? That would only be true if I could force you to spend your money at my business - which I can't do.

 

Let's turn that question around, though. Wouldn't that work the other way? How can freedom of religion (and the free exercise thereof) be considered a freedom if I'm forced to violate my religious beliefs?

 

Nobody is forced to practice any religion in this country. I can't force you to convert to Catholicism, and neither can the government, which is the primary reason for establishment clause of the First Amendment - to keep the government from endorsing or establishing an "official" religion.

 

What it doesn't do is give you the right to prevent me from practicing my religion in every aspect of my life. Your rights end where mine begin, and my rights are just as inviolable as yours.

It is interesting to note, however, that most of the liberals protesting this law remain absolutely silent on muslims throwing gay people off of buildings, beheading them, stoning them, etc.

Let's not mention good ole Hitlery Clintoon tweeting about the law (apparently not noticing the irony in protesting a law that's modeled after the law her husband signed into law at the federal level in 1993).

 

By the way, a person is free to not participate in my religious beliefs by - and here's the important part - doing business somewhere else.

 

See? FREEDOM... ~ Hunter