Gayle King Reminds Laverne Cox That He's A Man

Control the words and you control the debate. But regardless of what the mostly white, Godless, liberal media says or attempts to manipulate uneducated and naive people into thinking, people with independent brains know that it is God who has the only and final say on what gender you are. And no Godless liberal or man-made mechanism can change that. Laverne Cox will never know what a period feels like, nor will he ever be able to give birth or do any of other things women are naturally able to do. Laverne Cox is a man and will always be a man no matter what kind of front he continues to put on and some people need to remind him of that:

Leave it to Laverne Cox to make sure Oprah's best friend gets her trans terminology right.

The Emmy-nominated “Orange is the New Black” actress — the first openly transgender woman to receive that honor — appeared on “CBS This Morning” Tuesday to promote the show and her other projects. 

When co-host Gayle King started her section of the interview by saying “So, you were born a boy…”, Cox quickly corrected her by saying that she was “assigned” a gender at birth, but she always felt like she was a girl.

It seemed that King and her co-anchors, Norah O'Donnell and Charlie Rose, were a bit stuck on Cox being transgender, asking her questions about when she knew she was a girl and many standard queries that any other transgender person has been asked a million times.

RELATED: Justice Department Might Penalize Christian College For Transgender Policy

New York Times Calls for Legalization of Marijuana

Mediaite.com:

The New York Times editorial board announced the beginning of a six-part series Saturday evening calling for the legalization of marijuana, characterizing it as the 21st century’s version of prohibition, and just as in need of repeal. No word on responses from buzzkill columnists David Brooks and Maureen Dowd.

“We believe that on every level — health effects, the impact on society and law-and-order issues — the balance falls squarely on the side of national legalization,” the board wrote. “That will put decisions on whether to allow recreational or medicinal production and use where it belongs — at the state level.”

The Times’ arguments will be familiar to anyone who’s argued this issue before: research suggests the health effects from marijuana are present but hardly debilitating, and certainly less disastrous than the laws passed against it. The board said legalization should be for people 21 years and up.

“We recognize that this Congress is as unlikely to take action on marijuana as it has been on other big issues,” the board concluded. “But it is long past time to repeal this version of Prohibition.”

RELATED:  Myth: Legalization of Marijuana in Other Countries Has Been a Success

Adam Carolla: Liberals Have Turned Conservatism into a Pejorative

Mediaite.com:

Liberals have taken over the word “conservative” and turned it into a pejorative, says comedian and radio host Adam Carolla.

In the latest episode of The Adam & Dr. Drew Show, Carolla fielded a caller’s question about how, in the past year, it seems as though the actor has had much more to say about politics than in years past.

“It’s not a political stance; it’s a life stance,” Carolla said. “I understand how life works. You know why? I’ve done it.” He added: “I know that the path to success is a bunch of hard work and that is about it. And we can all get to that or we can call me whatever you want to call me.”

However, the comedian claimed that such views have now been branded a certain way (Transcript via RCP):

It’s bizarre and that’s what we have turned it into. But also, it’s the left turning conservatism into a pejorative, number one. Being conservative didn’t used to be a pejorative in any stretch of the imagination. Being a conservative with your money was being prudent. Being conservative as it pertains to work or investments or even at the poker table it was sort of prudent. Conservative meant prudent; it was not a pejorative.

The left has taken over the word conservative and turned it into a pejorative. So it’s like, “Oh, you’re a conservative?” They’ve done a wonderful smear campaign.

“Oh, are you a conservative?” “Yes, I’m a conservative.” “Oh, great. You hate women. You hate blacks. You hate all cultures. You love people’s money. You hate poor people.”

“No, no. I just want to focus on education. I want to focus on hard work. I want to focus on being motivated and getting ahead in a country that made for that ethic…”

Now, it’s weird that I can be conservative and never talk about religion. Because conservatives are a bunch of Bible-thumping, you know, brainwashed, you know, they believe the earth is 1,000 years old. How come I’m not religious? I’m an atheist. See, they just pick and choose whatever they want.

RELATED:  Progressives are quicker to seize on the political opportunities created by a changing culture

Moral Equivalence Is Usually Moral Negligence

Townhall.com:

Efforts to proclaim moral equivalence are not always misguided; sometimes each side is equally at fault or close enough. But these efforts are often misguided and unhelpful -- and sometimes harmful. 

Throughout my life, there has been an increasing trend to attach moral equivalence to all kinds of disputes and conflicts, such as Israel vs. Hamas, which is the subject of a future column. I assume this is mostly an outgrowth of our culture's descent into moral relativism, but it's also a product of our intellectual laziness.

We see it everywhere. It is a common practice in describing marriages gone wrong. "It takes two." "Who's to say who is more at fault?" Well, that sounds good and is often true, but how about in the case of the spousal or child abuser? 

But where I find it most troubling is in partisan politics. There the trend toward moral equivalence is the wrongdoer's best friend. If we dismiss every despicable and corrupt act with the mindless cliche "everyone does it," then we excuse the wrongdoer for his misconduct and encourage further misbehavior.

Sure, both sides are often at fault, but that isn't always the case, and it doesn't make you a better person to say otherwise if it isn't true. 

For example, I don't know a single conservative who supports muzzling leftist thought or speech, no matter how repugnant he may find it. Yet leftists are strongly supportive of various measures to suppress, even outlaw, conservative speech, from campus speech codes to the Fairness Doctrine. There is no way to describe this disparity in terms of moral equivalence. 

I sincerely believe there is a reason liberals engage in this behavior far more than conservatives. It is because many of them believe that their ends, which they believe are vastly superior, justify their means. I've seen it so much that I suspect it is inherent in leftist ideology. 

See the irony? Liberals, who are usually the first to throw up moral equivalency arguments when caught red-handed, are skilled practitioners at judging us -- their political opponents -- all the while claiming they just want everyone to get along. Through such moral shaming about moral judgments, the left intimidates conservatives from making and articulating their own moral assessments. 

Modern manifestations of this practice are the left's virtual weaponization of political correctness, its obsession with so-called "diversity" and multiculturalism, and its rejection of the idea of American exceptionalism. 

RELATED:  Obama signs executive order banning LGBT discrimination

Syracuse New York Mayor to Obama: Send Those Immigrant Kids Up Here

HotAir.com:

Even as Congress struggles with the ongoing crisis at the border and the President plans some sort of meeting with Central American leaders, there seems to be no shortage of elected officials who want to get in on the action. Of course, if you’re looking for help with a huge problem on the Texas border, your first thought might not be to ask somebody in upstate New York. But that won’t stop the city’s mayor, Stephanie Minor. (Go ahead… say “Mayor Minor” five times fast.)

The mayor’s latest pitch came in a letter to President Obama.

“We have a network of people who are used to dealing with refugee issues. And we have, most importantly, a compassionate community that wants to welcome these children and give them a safe place while these issues are worked out,” said Miner.

The Mayor is not alone in offering a helping hand.

“They’re somebody’s children. They’re loved. Parents made a great sacrifice, let them go, sent them here. I think that the parent that sends a child in a situation like that is hoping that their child will be received warmly and welcomed. Treated hospitably, and shown compassion,” said Bishop Robert Cunningham, Syracuse Roman Catholic Diocese.

The general idea is to house any incoming illegal aliens at the vacant campus of Maria Regina College, and the local reporters are eating it up. I’ve dealt with the media up here for some time, having had to work a couple of campaigns for Republicans, so it’s no surprise that the articles give very little coverage to the people who showed up at the proposed site to protest the plan. But they were out in numbers and saw things differently.

“You can tell the community is more behind us just by the honks,” said Carol Lucey, the New York State leader of Overpasses for America.”

Carrying signs and American flags, those opposed to housing the children said they came to protect America.

“We need to take care of our own first,” said Michelle Coon, of Constantia, and an Overpasses member. “There’s hungry children here in Syracuse. There are homeless children here in Syracuse.”

This is clearly not the first case where somebody thought of sending the incoming children to nearly the opposite ends of the continental United States rather than keeping them close to the deportation point. And the media is quick to note that “no local or state money” will be required to house them. (No mention seems to be made of the fact that the federal money which will be used is coming out of the citizens’ pockets also.) One of the oddest claims being made by the Mayor and her media allies, however, is this one:

How long will they stay?
The average stay is less than 35 days.

That seems odd, since one of the most liberal sources on the web admits that the current backlog of cases stands at more than 375,000 and the average wait time is currently 587 days. But Syracuse is going to clear them out in an average of 35 days? Is anyone buying this?

RELATED:  Obama's foes on border crisis: Democrats

Fox’s Andrea Tantaros Unloads: Obama Should Just ‘Call Gay Athletes’ and Stay Off Global Stage

Mediaite.com:

Fox News’s Andrea Tantaros, always a stern critic of President Barack Obama, went off on him again Friday while she and her co-hosts discussed U.S.-Russia relations.

“I’ll tell you what I expect him not to do,” she said. “I expect him to not have open mic deals done about flexibility after elections. I expect him to not impose weak sanctions on Russia. I expect him to not try and disarm our nuclear defenses. I expect him to encourage Ukraine to join NATO so they can be stronger. And I also expect him to be strong.”

Tantaros, getting more heated, continued:

I mean, look, if he can’t even enforce our own borders, he’s not going to be able to enforce the borders of other countries. So, you know what I say? good let him go. I would much rather have him not playing in hard cities where real armies can march. Let him call gay athletes, let him do “war on women” press conferences. Let him talk about birth control and infrastructure. I don’t want him playing on a global stage, because he’s going to muddle it and mess it up. So, everybody hold your nose and hang on because the next two years are gonna be crazy.

 RELATED:  The Obama Doctrine

Lawlessness Is Now the Dominant Theme in the Obama Saga

WashingtonExaminer.com:

For years, critics of President Obama and his administration have complained about a rising disregard for the rule of law.

The rule of law means that the public can expect the executive branch to honor the laws passed by the people's representatives in Congress, as well as the limitations placed on government in the Constitution, as amended.

It is a fundamental founding principle that the executive branch, while it has substantial power, is not to be a law unto itself.

In the context of implementation of legislation, the executive branch historically has been allowed some discretion as to the timing and manner of enforcement.

Yet, this discretion itself may be subject to abuse when flexibility as to implementation gives way to political considerations.

In May 2014, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tx., released a list of 76 Obama administration actions or failures to act that Cruz termed lawless.

Figuring prominently on Cruz' list were Obama administration unilateral actions on immigration, including implementing “portions of the DREAM, which Congress rejected, by executive action.”

The administration has once again signaled an intention of unilateral action, with Obama declaring that he would implement immigration reform "on my own, without Congress."

On Obamacare, in June 2012, the individual mandate was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court on sharply divided lines, based on the congressional power to tax.

Yet, the Obama administration has treated the Obamacare legislation itself as at most a guideline, altering the terms as needed.

The Galen Institute lists 23 changes to Obamacare imposed by Obama administration fiat, without congressional approval, including: Delaying the individual mandate, the small business exchanges, and employer mandate reporting; implementing a Medicare Advantage patch using funds allocated to other purposes; and allowing subsidies to flow through federal exchanges even though not authorized.

A unifying feature of the Obamacare unilateral administrative changes was to postpone negative effects of Obamacare until after the 2014 election.

In so doing, the administration was not acting within allowable discretion to implement the law, but rather, using political criteria to dictate which parts of the law would be enforced and which parts ignored for political reasons.

The decisions of the current Supreme Court term reflect the extent to which the Obama administration has disregarded the rule of law.

There have been at least 12 cases involving administration action in which the justices have ruled unanimously against the administration.

This from a court notoriously divided along “liberal” versus “conservative” lines on a slew of important decisions. Yet when it comes to administration overreach, the justices found a measure of unanimity.

The court's recent decision involving Obama's “recess appointments” to the National Labor Relations Board is instructive.

The case involved appointments during a brief 3-day period when the Senate was in “pro forma” business sessions, yet Obama decided on his own that the Senate was in recess.

The administration thus helped itself to determine for the Senate when the Senate was in session, contrary to the Senate’s inherent power to determine its own rules.

While the justices were not unanimous on the scope of executive branch recess appointment powers, they were unanimous that the administration’s attempt to utilize recess appointment powers during this 3-day break between pro forma business sessions was an improper power grab.

Overall, the Obama administration is having a miserable term at the Supreme Court, even aside from these unanimous rejections of its positions.

While the government typically wins 70 percent of the cases at the Supreme Court, this term its win percentage is only 39 percent of the cases in which it was a party.

The Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case, finding that the Obamacare contraception mandate was invalid in some circumstances, was a fitting end to a term in which the high court handed the administration one high profile loss after another.

There always is an uneasy balance between the executive branch and the Congress. That balance is upset when the executive branch treats legislation as a mere enabler and not as binding law, and when the executive branch engages in power grabs at the expense of the Congress and citizens.

It is that disregard for the rule of law that has become the central narrative of the Obama administration.

RELATED:  5 questions about John Boehner’s lawsuit against Barack Obama

CDC: Nation's Percentage of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals Less than Supposed; Huge HIV Spike Amongst Gays and Transgenders

Breitbart.com:

The Washington Post reports that a highly definitive study from 2013 has pegged the size of the gay population in the United States at far less than has sometimes been estimated. 

The National Health Interview Survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is the federal government’s most relied upon estimate of the nation’s health and behaviors, found that fewer than 3% of respondents self-identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Only 1.6% of respondents self-identified as gay or lesbian, and even less, 0.7%, self-identified as bisexual. 

The estimate of the percentage of bisexuals was lower than the 2008 General Social Survey, which estimated that number at 1.1 percent, while other surveys have intimated that the percentage of bisexuals is the same as gays.

Conversely, 96.6% self-identified as straight, while 1.1% answered, “I don’t know the answer” or stated they were “something else.” 

Gary J. Gates, a demographer at the Williams Institute, a research center at the University of California at Los Angeles that studies the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) population, acknowledged, “This is a major step forward in trying to remedy some of these gaps in our understanding of the role sexual orientation and gender identity play in people’s health and in their lives.”

The study was first done in 1957; the Census Bureau conducts it and sends the data to the CDC. It is widely considered highly reliable; the 2013 survey interviewed 33,557 adults between the ages of 18 and 64 using face-to-face interviews with additional telephone questions. The questions ranged from medical care and vaccinations to tobacco use. Government health officials champion the NHIS survey because the population studied is so large.

Brian W. Ward, the researcher for the report, said some of the other findings included:

• Gays were more likely to smoke or have five or more drinks in one day than straights.
• More straight women considered themselves in excellent or very good health than lesbians did of themselves.
• More gays were likely to have had a flu shot than straights; gay men were not as overweight as straight men.
• Bisexuals were more likely to have suffered psychological distress in the last month than straights.

RELATED:  World Health Organization Recommends Drastic Measures to Fight HIV Among Gays, Transgenders

Race-Baiting Attorney General Eric Holder: America Not 'Colorblind'

Politico.com:

U.S Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that the country “is not yet colorblind,” during remarks marking the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“As it stands, our society is not yet colorblind; nor should it be, given the disparities that still afflict and divide us,” Holder said at Howard University in Washington, according to prepared remarks.

Holder said it is an “undeniable truth” that injustices “continue to reverberate.”

Holder added that the “timelessness” of the Civil Rights Act has enabled the Justice Department’s efforts in seeking progress for the LGBT community as well as women and minorities.

“But it also shows that our work is far from over. Significant challenges remain before us. And each one of us — every American — has a great deal more to do,” Holder said.

Holder said that many LGBT individuals are denied credit and housing, women still face workplace inequalities, and racial divides remain in school funding as well as the criminal justice system, before calling on Congress to tackle these issues — including passing updated voting rights legislation.

RELATED: No, Mr. Holder, This Has Nothing to Do With Race

The "Heartland" Canard: Smearing Republicans On Immigration

NationalReview.com:

The heartlessness and nativist pandering that have broken America’s immigration system must give way to providing proper food, clothing, shelter and medical care to the Central American children streaming into the country.” So pronounced the editors of the New York Daily News. Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne echoed the theme in his “Bordering on Heartless” column, noting that Glenn Beck has “come under fierce attack” for his proposal to bring food, water, teddy bears, and soccer balls to the children stuck at the border. “It’s one more sign,” Dionne writes, “of how the crisis at our border has brought out the very worst in our political system and a degree of plain nastiness that we should not be proud of as a nation.”

Charges of Republican or conservative heartlessness about the children flooding the border have been common. Some journalists seemingly cannot type the word “Republican” without the modifier “heartless.” But where is the evidence of this supposed callousness and why is it any greater among Republicans than Democrats?

The flag-waving protesters who confronted buses of children in Murietta, Calif., were unseemly. Whatever the merits of arguments over illegal immigration, children are clearly helpless pawns in the drama and should not be subjected to protests about actions over which they have no control.

But other than the protesters in Murietta — and no one has polled them to discover their political views, though it’s likely that they’re conservatives — by what standard are Republicans held to be heartless while Democrats are not?

Is it by arguing that the new illegal migrants be denied legal status? Jeh Johnson, the Obama administration’s secretary of Homeland Security, said just that. “Those who cross borders today illegally, including children, are not eligible for an earned path to citizenship.”

One can make a case that those Democrats who virtually invited a flood of underage migrants to our shores are more culpable for the humanitarian emergency than those who simply reacted once it was underway. The president’s unilateral granting of legal status to the children of illegal immigrants together with the 2008 law providing special treatment for children thought to be victims of trafficking sent a signal that was received and then amplified throughout Central America. The Department of Homeland Security seemed to know in advance that the deluge was coming: In January of 2014, it advertised for contractors to help with the “resettlement” of up to 65,000 underage migrants. Texas governor Rick Perry says that he warned the administration about the influx but got the impression that “they weren’t that interested.”

Or perhaps the president anticipated the flood but miscalculated its political effects, just as he misjudged the way the Bowe Bergdahl swap would be received. He may have thought that thousands of children crossing our borders would pressure Congress to pass the kind of immigration reform he favors. When it turned out differently, he resorted to partisan sniping. No crisis will “go to waste” — including those he creates himself.

This president engages in schoolyard taunts, calling Republican budget proposals, for example, a “meanwich” and a “stinkburger.” It’s hard to be a leader of all the people when you never rise above partisan hackery.

E. J. Dionne, like the president, thinks Republicans are cruel, but as he acknowledged, unless you are prepared to permit unlimited immigration, you must make “agonizing choices about whom to let in and whom to turn away.” Yes, the circumstances from which these unaccompanied children fled are terrible. But so are the home situations for many of the 4.5 million people worldwide currently waiting, legally, for visas to enter the United States. And while Central America is poor, corrupt, and crime-ridden, it cannot be the case that those conditions alone guarantee entry into the U.S. Most countries on earth meet those criteria.

Second to the human suffering, the most dismaying aspect of this border situation is that — unlike, say, the mortgage-finance issue — it’s a relatively straightforward problem. Congress could repeal the Wilberforce Act and provide funding for housing, feeding, and deporting the children who’ve crossed the border in the past several months. Private organizations could contribute time and money toward making the children comfortable and arranging for their safe return. The president could state unequivocally (with special messages targeted at Central America) that illegal migrants who arrive at our borders will be treated humanely but deported.

This won’t happen not because Republicans are meanies, but because the president’s unremitting partisanship and small-mindedness have left him unable to do even the easy things.

RELATED:  D’Souza: Obama Wants Border Chaos, Can ‘Prey’ on the American People’s Guilt

Chicago Residents Slam Obama: 'He Will Go Down As Worst President Ever Elected'

Townhall.com:

Residents of Chicago’s South Side are sick and tired of the epidemic of violence in their community—and for good reason. This year alone, 1,080 people have been shot and wounded in the Windy City, while 184 have been killed. To make matters worse, President Obama seems to be ignoring the problems plaguing his hometown, yet is catering to the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants crossing the border.

“[Barack] is gonna go down as being one of the worst presidents ever,” one angry South Side resident said at a protest in front of the Chicago Police Department last week. “President Barack needs to pay attention to Chicago, if he cannot pay attention to Chicago and the African-American community, he needs to resign.”

RELATED:  Jesse Jackson: Good to Help Immigrants, But Obama Can’t ‘Abandon Urban America’

Creators of Archie Comics: Archie Will Die Saving Homosexual Friend

The Liberal Indoctrination Camp and the Gay Mafia displaying its power to the world at large visa-vis a one-time traditional and apolitical comic book. The guess here is that the shooter will either be a member of the Tea Party or Rush Limbaugh:

In April, the creators of Archie Comics announced that they were killing off its main character, and today, they announced how Archie Andrews will die in Wednesday’s edition of Life with Archie: by taking a bullet for the comic’s first openly gay character.

In an interview with TPM, Jon Goldwater, the CEO of Archie Comics, said that the death is “everything that you would expect of Archie. He dies heroically. He dies selflessly. He dies in the manner that epitomizes not only the best of Riverdale but the best of all of us. It’s what Archie has come to represent over the past almost 75 years.”

All of the hot topics of today are involved in the storyline: the death takes place in a future where Archie, Betty, Veronica, and everyone else are all adults, and Kevin Keller, the first openly gay character in the comics, is now a US Senator fighting for gun control. Why Kevin, you might ask?

“We wanted to do something that was impactful that would really resonate with the world and bring home just how important Archie is to everyone,” said Goldwater. “That’s how we came up with the storyline of saving Kevin. He could have saved Betty. He could have saved Veronica. We get that, but metaphorically, by saving Kevin, a new Riverdale is born.”

The franchise, however, has been around since 1941, so Archie Andrews will still live on in other comic series. 

RELATED:  Bitter feud between two CEOs rocks company behind Archie comic series

Godless Liberals Move To Outlaw Christianity

Townhall.com:

The mask is off. All pretense has been dropped, and the anti-Christian left’s boundless depth of hatred for individual liberty, our First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is now on full display. 

I wrote last week about the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby opinion, a rather tepid acknowledgement of every American’s non-negotiable right to religious free exercise (yes, that includes Christian business owners). I observed, among other things, that “the secularist left’s utter meltdown over having but a small measure of control over others wrested away is highly instructive.” 

The meltdown continues. This week brings two new developments: 1) Democrats in Congress have readied a legislative “Hobby Lobby fix” that stands exactly zero chance of passing and would be struck down as unconstitutional even if it did, and 2) The ACLU, AFL-CIO, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Lambda Legal and a hodgepodge of other left-wing extremist groups have withdrawn support for the ironically tagged “Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” the crown jewel of homofascism, because the bill’s paper-thin “religious exemption” does not adequately outlaw the practice of Christianity. 

The Hobby Lobby ‘fix’
Addressing the high court’s Hobby Lobby decision last Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., fumed, “We have so much to do this month, but the one thing we’re going to do during this work period – sooner rather than later – is to ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men.” 

To which Justice Clarence Thomas replied, “Say what, honky?” 

“This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous,” continued Reid, “and we’re going to do something about it.”

Well, “do something about it” they shall try. TalkingPointsMemo.com reported on legislation Democrats introduced Thursday that would do away with religious liberty protections altogether: 

“The legislation will be sponsored by Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Mark Udall, D-Colo. According to a summary reviewed by TPM, it prohibits employers from refusing to provide health services, including contraception [and abortion pills], to their employees if required by federal law. It clarifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the basis for the Supreme Court’s ruling against the mandate, and all other federal laws don’t permit businesses to opt out of the Obamacare requirement. 

“The legislation also puts the kibosh on legal challenges by religious nonprofits, like Wheaton College, instead declaring that the accommodation they’re provided under the law [there is none] is sufficient to respect their religious liberties.” 

This reactionary response to the Hobby Lobby ruling is, of course, little more than an election year fundraising scheme for the Democratic National Committee. 

Withdrawn support for ENDA
 
The Washington Post reports, “Several major gay rights groups withdrew support Tuesday for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that would bolster gay and transgender rights in the workplace, saying they fear that broad religious exemptions included in the current bill might compel private companies to begin citing objections similar to those that prevailed in a U.S. Supreme Court case last week. … 

“But the groups said they can no longer back ENDA as currently written in light of the Supreme Court’s decision last week to strike down a key part of President Obama’s health-care law. The court ruled that family-owned businesses do not have to offer their employees contraceptive coverage that conflicts with the owners’ religious beliefs,” concluded the Post. 

Gary Glenn is a candidate for the Michigan State House. He’s also president of AFA Michigan. Glenn has been a national leader in defense of religious liberty for well upon two decades. In an email, Glenn wrote, “The extremely limited religious exemptions typically included in discriminatory homosexual and cross-dressing ‘rights’ laws have always been mere window-dressing with no real protection or effect, as witnessed by the ongoing persecution and discrimination under such laws against Christian business owners and community organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, and even the United Way. 

“But now that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision threatens to give real teeth to such exemptions, the AFL-CIO’s in-house homosexual activist group has announced it will no longer support discriminatory ‘sexual orientation’ legislation that includes even limited exemptions for religious institutions. 

“If this zero tolerance stance spreads to larger groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force [it now has], this could become the sticking point which hamstrings future attempts to pass federal, state, and local homosexual ‘rights’ legislation. These supposed religious exemptions, which the AFL-CIO’s homosexual lobby at least now says it will no longer support, have been a key propaganda point in blunting the opposition of churches and citizens concerned about the obvious threat such laws pose to religious freedom.” 

According to its leftist proponents, ENDA would merely insulate people who choose to engage in homosexual conduct (sexual orientation) or those who suffer from gender confusion (gender identity) against employment intolerance. In truth, however, this legislation effectively would codify the very thing it purports to combat: workplace discrimination. 

Though in its current form ENDA contains an extremely weak religious exemption that might – and I mean might – partially protect some churches and religious organizations (until they’re sued by “gay” activists), this so-called exemption would leave most others, such as Bible bookstores and many Christian schools and para-church organizations, entirely unprotected. It would additionally crush individual business owners’ guaranteed First Amendment rights. 

Any “religious exemption” is meaningless. Last year Harry Reid promised homosexual pressure groups that Democrats would remove all protections for Christians and other people of faith on the flipside – after ENDA passed. The homosexual news site Washington Blade reported that homosexual activist Derek Washington of “GetEqual” confirmed Reid’s promise. In a conference call with homosexual activists, Washington admitted that Reid vowed, as goes any religious exemption, “the main thing to do was get the vote taken care of, and then deal with it later. As oftentimes happens, you don’t get something perfect the first time around, you go back and fix it later, so that was basically his take on it.” 

According to the Blade, “That account was corroborated by Faiz Shakir, a Reid spokesperson, who said the Democratic leader understands the concerns, but wants to get the bill passed first, then go back and address the exemptions.” 

They’ve stopped pretending, folks. This is about criminalizing Christianity. The Hobby Lobby decision has merely made secular liberals forget themselves momentarily. It’s blown back the propagandist curtain to expose their truly sinister aims. Hobby Lobby hasn’t put the “culture war” to rest. It’s taken a gavel to the “progressive” hornets’ nest. 

Break out the popcorn and Jujubes. It’s about to get interesting. 

RELATED:  I Now Pronounce You Spouse And Spouse

Black Americans: The True Casualties of Amnesty

This proves (once again) how much white liberals know they can take black votes for granted. It's a proven fact that the acceptance of illegal immigrants in this country will hurt black Americans the most--the same folks who are already suffering from an unemployment rate that doubles the national average. But white liberals don't care. Having the 1st half-black President in office will keep the blackies in line (and stats prove that symbolism alone is enough to keep their heads up Obama's ass while he continues to ignore their needs) while the white libs continue to usurp their true agenda:

One of the sleeper issues surrounding the debate on amnesty for illegal immigrants – an inconvenient one that no proponent of a widespread amnesty wishes to acknowledge – is the devastating effect so-called immigration reform will have on African Americans.

The black unemployment rate is almost 11 percent, far higher than that of any other group profiled by labor statistics. African Americans are disproportionately employed in lower-skilled jobs – the very same jobs immigrants take. As Steven Camarota asked in a recent column, why double immigration when so many people already aren’t working?

Who will be harmed most by amnesty? African-Americans.

The issue resurfaced this week when a YouTube video emerged of two young African-Americans confronting pro-illegal-immigration demonstrators in Murrieta, California. Murrieta is one of the towns in which undocumented minors are being relocated — and supporters are squaring off with protestors.
The young man argues:

If somebody brought six children to your house and you ain’t got no job, are you gonna take them in?… What are you gonna do? Are you gonna try to go out there and take care of these children AND the children you got already that you can’t take care of?… What are we going to do for the people who are here who are starving already?… We got our OWN people that are starving and hungry…. Why would we add to the problem?!

He also laments the problems in black neighborhoods where prices “are upped on everything” after large groups of immigrants move in.
 The young woman argues:

It’s just too much…. We already have our own poor people. Starvation, kids walking with no shoes…. We don’t need other people’s kids to bring more problems…. You’re gonna watch America go spiraling down… We’re already in debt as it is. [Now] we’re gonna need more money to support these kids.

Why are Democratic politicians disregarding the concerns and needs of black Americans in a push to address the concerns and needs… of foreigners? Amnesty proponents speak of the need to grant others a better life – but what of the need to  look out for our fellow Americans? What of those black Americans whose ancestors quite literally built this nation through the sweat of their brows?

Instead, Democrats are chucking aside black voters in their rush to lock in the Latino vote (or so they’re hoping). Taken for granted as a given come election-time, blacks are now actively harmed as the Democrats vow to grow their voting base through importing more and more of what they see as future blue-voters. It’s the husband who leaves his wife of 30 years: ‘We had a good run, honey, but I’ve found someone new.’

Black attorney and member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Peter Kirsanow, serves as one of the lone voices of reason, repeatedly outlining the harm amnesty will cause black Americans. In a 2013 letter to the Congressional Black Caucus, he wrote: “The obvious question is whether there are sufficient jobs in the low-skilled labor market for both African-Americans and illegal immigrants. The answer is no.” Kirsanow’s statistics demonstrate the way in which immigration impacts the wages and employment opportunities of black males and hurts the black community.

But no one seems to listen to Kirsanow.

Meanwhile, the harm to African Americans is not limited to reduced wages, greater competition for jobs, and declining household incomes – now even the black history of suffering is being diluted. Liberal columnist and CNN pundit Sally Kohn penned a column last week arguing that the term ‘illegal immigrant’ is the same as the N-word. Kohn, is usually fair-minded and reasoned in her arguments, lumping black Americans’ unique history and suffering with that of certain Latino immigrants is absurd and offensive. Consider that the N-word was used to describe a person who was whipped daily,   while ‘illegal immigrant’ is a word used to describe a person who receives free education (even in-state tuition!), housing, driver’s licenses, legal aid, food, and healthcare. To even claim the two words are similar is an unthinkable affront – and insult – to African-Americans.

Senator Jeff Sessions’s recent National Review column  “On Immigration, It’s Time to Defend Americans,” hits the nail on the head. Sessions notes:

Harvard professor George Borjas estimated that high immigration rates from 1980 to 2000 resulted in a 7.4 percent wage reduction for lower-skilled American workers…. The Center for Immigration Studies issued a study based on Census data showing that “since 2000 all of the net gain in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job has gone to immigrants.”… If mass immigration is so good for the economy, why then — during this long sustained period of record immigration into the U.S. — are incomes falling and a record number of Americans not working?

Birthright citizenship is already bad enough; largely refusing to deport illegal immigrants is already bad enough.But now, we’ve upped the ante even further. Overburdened taxpayers, including black taxpayers, are covering the cost to feed, clothe and educate illegals, and black Americans face the additional burden of having their historic suffering belittled and their precarious circumstances made even worse.

Democrats have built a brand as the party willing to stand up for black Americans, but the amnesty push shows what a false promise that was. The message to black voters is: “Yes, your ancestors endured unimaginable hardships and helped build this country, and we said we’d help you out. But now we have a new trophy wife.”

RELATED: Congressional Testimony: How Mass Immigration Hurts Black Americans

White, Liberal A-Hole Harry Reid Calls Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas 'White'

Only when somebody has the guts to call Harry Reid the lying piece of shit he is to his face, will this type of steady slander stop. I mean when a white liberal displays the gall to test a black person's blackness (i.e. Bill Maher), it just shows the length they'll go to not only diss black conservatives, but just how comfortable they are in their own skin to do so:

Have we reached Peak Reid Demagoguery yet? I thought we had yesterday when Democrats signed onto Harry Reid’s Kochsteria strategy for the 2014 midterms, but we actually missed the new nadir for America’s top-ranked demagogue — but our good friend Larry O’Connor at the Free Beacon didn’t. Yesterday, when addressing the media about the Democratic strategy to undo Hobby Lobby, Reid insisted that the Senate wouldn’t let “five white men” have the last word on contraception mandates.

Um …

“The one thing we are going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women’s lives are not determine by virtue of five white men,” Reid said. “This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous and we are going to do something about it. People are going to have to walk down here and vote.”

Someone‘s confused, and I’m pretty sure it isn’t this man, one of the five in the majority on the Hobby Lobby decision:

What, exactly, did race have to do with this anyway? It was a gratuitous swipe, a reflex reaction by a man so consumed by poisonous demagoguery and “vilification” that he seems to have become demented by it. It exposes just how dishonest and ignorant Reid has become during his long tenure in the US Senate.
Nonetheless, Democrats keep supporting his leadership, and will move forward with their anti-religious freedom bill today. Not only does this have no chance of passing in the House, it may not pass in the Senate either, since red-state Democrats already under fire for having voted for ObamaCare may now have to vote against religious freedom too:

The Senate bill being announced Wednesday by Murray would override the Supreme Court decision by requiring for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby to provide and pay for contraception and any other form of health coverage mandated by the Affordable Care Act.

The bill would override the Religious Freedom Act, forcing most employers to comply with federal health-care requirements despite their religious objections. It would, however, include an exemption for houses of worship and an accommodation for religious non-profits.

Such a bill will likely face a tough pathway, even in the Democrat-controlled Senate, where several Democrats from more conservative states who face tough reelection fights will have to weigh the potential for political backlash if they support it. Other bills that would have codified major Democratic positions into law, such as paising the minimum wage and paycheck fairness, have fallen short of passage in the Senate this year.

There are currently efforts underway by House Democrats to craft a companion bill on the contraception issue, a Democratic leadership aide confirmed Tuesday, but such legislation would likely be a non-starter in the Republican-controlled lower chamber.

Yes, I’m sure the House will drop whatever it’s doing on the economy and jobs to strengthen ObamaCare. Reid wants vulnerable Democratic incumbents to vote once again to support an outcome of ObamaCare, even though it has no possibility whatsoever of passing the House and opens up another demographic — voters of faith — for stronger turnout against them in the fall.

It’s an insane strategy, one so bizarre that it alone should have Democrats wondering why they’re still listening to Harry Reid at all. Voters will be asking that question in four months, too.

RELATED:  Democrats Fast-Track Bill To Override Hobby Lobby Decision

How Gullible Liberals Misread Birth-Control Ruling

Bloombergview.com:

Liberals should spend less time lauding the dissents in last week's Hobby Lobby decision by the U.S. Supreme Court and more time reading them. If they did, they'd notice that some of their main arguments find little support -- even from liberal justices. 

President Barack Obama's administration has sought to require almost all employers that offer health insurance to cover contraceptives. The court's majority ruled that Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. and similar companies could refuse to cover contraceptives to which they have religious objections. 

Many liberals say that this ruling was flawed because the Religious Freedom Restoration Act -- the 1993 law the case turned on -- doesn't protect for-profit corporations. Yet only two of the justices took that view; the other two dissenters refused to endorse it.

And not one of the justices chose to question the relevant beliefs of Hobby Lobby's owners: that the contraceptives to which they object can cause human embryos to die. Unlike many liberal commentators, all the justices grasped that whether the owners' objection has a strong evidentiary basis -- which it does -- is irrelevant to their legal claim. A government that respects religious liberty doesn't subject religious claims to such scrutiny. When the Volstead Act exempted communion wine from Prohibition, lawmakers didn't inquire about whether it really became the blood of Jesus.

Reading the dissenters would also keep people from misunderstanding the court's subsequent ruling on Wheaton College, which has led to a similar liberal freak-out. The school wasn't subject to the same contraceptive mandate as Hobby Lobby. Instead, it qualified for what the White House calls an "accommodation": It would merely have to sign a form authorizing others to provide the contraceptive coverage. 

The evangelical school's representatives objected, saying that signing the form would itself violate their religious beliefs. On Thursday, the court said that Wheaton didn't have to sign the form until its case had been heard in court.

Three of the dissenting justices -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor -- accused the majority of going back on its word. Supposedly the majority had blessed the accommodation in the Hobby Lobby case and was now showing "disregard" for its own new precedent. 

Liberal commentators went nuts. Kevin Drum at Mother Jones said the court's behavior was "shameful" because "the obvious implication" of the Hobby Lobby case was that the accommodation was OK. Dahlia Lithwick and Sonja West, writing in Slate, attacked the court for declaring the accommodation "unconstitutional."

The court did no such thing. It didn't even declare the accommodation illegal. It lifted the requirement temporarily while litigation proceeds. That it did so should be no surprise: The majority opinion in the Hobby Lobby case specifically declared that it wasn't deciding whether the accommodation was legal, noting that other lawsuits on that issue were before the court and that another organization, Little Sisters of the Poor, had been told it didn't have to sign the form until these lawsuits are settled. 

All of the dissenting justices were aware of this fact: They criticized the majority opinion for being "noncommittal" instead of embracing the accommodation. The confusion in the commentariat arises because of a misreading of the majority's analysis. 

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act says that when the government imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion, it has to show that it has used the least burdensome means possible. The majority relied on the administration's account that the accommodation is less burdensome than the full-blown mandate, and it said the mandate was therefore illegal. That didn't mean that the accommodation itself passed legal muster. The court wasn't saying that the accommodation is the right way to promote the government's coverage goals while respecting religious freedom -- it was saying that its existence shows that the mandate can't be the right way.

To review: The court majority, in the Hobby Lobby case, declined to rule on whether the accommodation is compatible with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and put off consideration of that issue for another case. In its Wheaton order, it again declined to rule on the legality of the accommodation while it awaits a full review. There is no inconsistency, no "retreat" (as Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor put it). 

The three justices who dissented on Wheaton, on the other hand, have gone in a few days from complaining that the majority hadn't blessed the accommodation to complaining that they had taken back their blessing.

The language they use seems designed to fool gullible or ignorant commentators. Drum condemned the "PR games" at the Supreme Court. He's right about that; he just has the wrong justices in mind.

RELATED:  Cyndi Lauper Pens Op-Ed Blasting Hobby Lobby Decision

Politiks As Usual: In The News 7/6/14

Boehner: Why We Must Now Sue The President

States Look To Gun Seizure Law After Mass Killings

Grand Dragon Al Sharpton and MSNBC's Black Klux Klan 

Will Megyn Kelly Help Bring Ayers To Justice? 

Black Unemployment 10.7%, More Than Double White Unemployment 5.3%

Sheriffs Refusing to Put Hold On Immigrant Inmates for Feds

Video: Cop Repeatedly Beats Woman in the Head

Author: Machines Will Take Over, Humans Will be Cyborgs by 2100

Ten Reasons Women Are Losing While Gays Keep Winning

Newspaper Apologizes For 2008 Obama Endorsement

First Lady Bucks GOP On School Lunch Rules

Obama’s Irresponsible Taunt: President Increasingly Willing To Go At It Alone

Chase Bank Surveys Workers To See If They’re An ‘Ally Of The Homosexual Community

Thanks to the 1st Gay President Barack Obama's unyielding support, the powerful Gay Mafia will go to any depth to force their unGodly lifestyle on you, even if it means forcing you to choose between your Christian beliefs and your job:

A JP Morgan Chase bank employee says he’s not only puzzled by an internal company survey that asked workers if they considered themselves friend of the lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender community — he’s fearful of losing his job.

The unnamed employee reported to Professor Robert George of Princeton, who runs a law blog, that this year’s company survey — which is distributed to employees annually as a means of gauging work satisfaction — asked respondents to note if they were disabled, had children or spouses and domestic spouses with disabilities and were members of the LGBT community, Breitbart reported.

But the last question was the most controversial. It read, Breitbart reported: “Are you … an ally of the LGBT community, but not personally identifying as LGBT?”

The employee said he feared that answering no could open him up to charges of discrimination that could negatively impact his employment.

The employee told Mr. George in a written statement that he worried about his future with Chase, saying that “this survey wasn’t anonymous,” Breitbart reported.

“You had to enter your employee ID. With the way things are going and the fact that LGBT rights are being viewed as pretty much tantamount to the civil rights movement of the mid ‘50s to late ‘60s, not selecting that option is essentially saying, ‘I’m not an ally of civil rights,’ which is a vague way to say, ‘I’m a bigot.’ The worry among many of us is that those who didn’t select that poorly placed, irrelevant option will be placed on the ‘you can fire these people first’ list,” he said.

Mr. George posted the statement on his law blog, Mirror of Justice, and shortly after received confirmation from another Chase employee that the survey did in fact include the LGBT query.

This second source, who requested anonymity to protect his job, told Mr. George: “I just wanted to confirm the Chase employee survey. It did have the last two options about being an LGBT ally. I have wired for Chase for [a number of] years and was blown away by this question. I have no idea what they were thinking when they asked that. If this is posted, please spare my identity.”

RELATED: Federal judge strikes down Kentucky’s ban on gay marriage

'Refugees': Liberal News Networks Refuse to Call Illegals Illegal

Breitbart.com:

Newbusters reports that in the wake of tens of thousands of illegal aliens swarming over the American border, the broadcast networks are refusing to use the word "illegal" to describe these illegal aliens. And that's not because they are using words like "invaders" or "soon-to-be Democrats."

Instead, viewers are hearing words like "refugee" and "undocumented." NBC News went so far as to create the Twitter handle #RefugeeRiders. 

NBC''s Lauer began his editorializing by arguing that “as so many issues in this country do it's going to boil down to politics. And wherever you stand on the issue, one side or the other, I'm not going to weigh in on that, it's hard to see those images moms and their kids in that situation.” The NBC host then encouraged his audience to share their thoughts using the Today show hashtag #RefugeeRiders. 

Throughout the entire report, NBC’s Miguel Almaguer refused to use the term “illegal immigrant” and instead used the term “undocumented immigrants" to describe the 140 individuals being bussed to California[.] …

On ABC’s Good Morning America, reader Ryan Smith didn’t even use the term “undocumented” during the news brief and instead noted that “ new information about those government buses full of immigrants which were blocked from entering a processing center in California Tuesday by this group of angry protesters who say the immigrants are a public safety threat.” During the 8:00 a.m. hour, Smith did use the term "illegal" in his news brief. 

Finally, CBS This Morning substitute anchor Margaret Brennan introduced its report by highlighting the “controversial government plan to transfer undocumented immigrants from Texas to California is set to continue this morning.” Reporter John Blackstone, who provided a full report Tuesday night did not use the term “illegal immigrant” again on Wednesday morning.

The Orwellian language is likely a result of polling that shows 59% of the country rightly blame President Obama for the current immigration crisis, and just as many  say that "the children should be ordered to leave the country."

There's no question that Obama and the Democrat Party's amnesty rhetoric lured tens of thousands of illegal immigrant children to risk harrowing journeys over hundreds and thousands of miles to get here. They are now overwhelming our immigrations systems and risking the spread of disease. 

RELATED:  New Documentary “We Ride to DC” Blows Lid Off Mainstream Media’s Agenda

Q-poll Says Barack Obama Is Worst President Since WWII

HotAir.com:

It’s no secret that Barack Obama’s popularity has plunged over the past 18 months of his second term, but just how bad has it gotten? According to a new poll from Quinnipiac, Americans pick him as the worst post-WWII president of all. A third of respondents choose Obama for that dubious honor, while 28% pick George W. Bush:

President Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, 33 percent of American voters say in a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today. Another 28 percent pick President George W. Bush. …

Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, 39 percent of voters say, while 40 percent say he is worse. Men say 43 – 36 percent that Obama is worse than Bush while women say 42 – 38 percent he is better. Obama is worse, Republicans say 79 – 7 percent and independent voters say 41 – 31 percent. Democrats say 78 – 4 percent that he is better.

Obama beats up George Bush on the economy any time he can in order to distract attention from the fact that his own economic policies have produced the worst recovery since WWII — not exactly a coincidence in regard to this poll. That tactic isn’t working as well as it used to work, though:

Voters say by a narrow 37 – 34 percent that Obama is better for the economy than Bush.

That’s within the MOE, but that’s the good news on Bush comparisons. He’s now at 39/40 against Bush as to which was the better President, down from 46/30 in January 2011 when the question was last asked. Among independents, Obama scores 31/41 and barely holds serve with women at 42/38.

Obama got a little bit of good news in his overall approval ratings, but that just shows how bad the rest of the news is from this poll. His job approval improved to 40/53, up from 38/57 in December … but not by much. Among independents, it’s 31/59, and among women — a critical demographic for Democrats this fall — it’s 42/49. He’s dead even on trustworthiness overall (48/48) but 42/53 among independents, and underwater on leadership at 47/51 overall and 41/57 among independents.

Perhaps even more embarrassing — and potentially more dangerous for other Democrats — is the rise of buyer’s remorse from the election of 2012:

America would be better off if Republican Mitt Romney had won the 2012 presidential election, 45 percent of voters say, while 38 percent say the country would be worse off.

Missing Mitt are Republicans 84 – 5 percent and independent voters 47 – 33 percent, while Democrats say 74 – 10 percent that the U.S. would be worse off with Romney.

If independents have double-digit buyer’s remorse from 2012, that suggests a strong desire to make up for their earlier mistake. The economy is driving that remorse. Respondents rate the economy as their highest priority by far in the midterms. Obama only gets a 40/55 on the economy, and 34/61 among independents. At the very least, it shows that independents won’t be too motivated to vote for Obama’s allies, while Republicans will be very motivated to turn out in November.

RELATED:  Thumbing His Nose at Congress, the Constitution, and the People

Rep. Lenar Whitney Proves That Global Warming Is A Hoax

Mediaite.com:

Republican congressional candidate and Louisiana state representative Lenar Whitney put out an ad just a few days ago really going off on global warming, accusing liberals (and Al Gore in particular) of perpetuating a hoax. She declares, “A specter is haunting America. It is perhaps the greatest deception in the history of mankind.”

Whitney claims the earth has gotten colder every year for the past few years and went after the Obama administration for claiming the opposite. She points to the decrease in global storms and the infamous “Climategate” case to dismiss global warming as a huge hoax.

She says that pushing the global warming “ruse” has had a “devastating effect” on America, and the U.S. push to do something about it is all about giving the executive branch more power and giving liberals the gift of regulating every aspect of American life.

RELATED: To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here