Liberals Attempt to Punish Free Speech: The Chick-fil-A Mess

“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values,”- Rahm Emanuel  

As most of you know, Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-fil-A, has come out and said that he supports the traditional family unit as defined in the Bible, a clever way of saying he does not believe in same-sex marriage. After Cathy admitted to being "guilty as charged" there has been an amazing backlash from the Left to the point where the mayors of both Chicago and Boston are now claiming they will not allow Chick-fil-A's to be built in their city due to the supposed outrageous and discriminatory practices it takes part in.

Here is what I don't understand: Dan Cathy simply stated his opinion, which is very much in the norm for Conservative Christians all over America. So by using his freedom of speech, the left now claims that Chick-fil-A is run by a bunch of bigots who hate gays. There has never been one reported instance of Chick-fil-A discriminating against any specific race, gender, or sexual orientation. Employees  are coming forward and defending the organization for it's fair treatment of every single worker and customer. To "discriminate" would be to deny service or somehow treat gays differently from other customers. That being said, liberals should probably brush up on their vocabulary before they start making such ignorant generalizations that have absolutely no factual merit to back it up.

The main issue here is that the left is now denying a privately owned business the right to locate where they want to, just because of the owner's Christian beliefs. It's not like liberals read the Constitution, but if they did, they might notice America prides itself on freedom of Religion. So now, not only are they claiming Chick-fil-A is a religious institution because of the opinions of the owner, but they are denying him the freedom to set up where he wants. Essentially what is happening here is that liberals are denying free enterprise and punishing free speech, all in the defense of "discriminatory practices" that are non-existent...classic liberals.

What I find extremely ironic is that this reminds me of the whole Mosque being built near Ground Zero drama. Liberals were very supportive of the mosque being built, but now are vehemently opposed to any new Chick-fil-A's popping up? Sure, Liberals are supportive of freedom of religion, unless that religion is Christianity...

Huckabee has tried to rally the conservative base and announced that everyone should go to Chick-fil-A to show their support on August 1st in an attempt to create the highest number of sales in one day. There are already rumors of gays standing outside Chick-fil-A's on that day for "Kiss-ins" where apparently they will just be making out right outside the restaurant. Great.

To boycott Chick-fil-A just because of the owner's opinion on one political matter would be like all conservatives boycotting "The Dark Knight Rises" simply because Morgan Freeman (who donated 1 million dollars to Obama) and Anne Hathaway are pro-choice. It's ridiculous.

Instead of just respecting that everyone has their own opinions, the left feels like it now has to go on the offensive and get in everybodys face. Rosanne Barr even stated that she'd like to see all Chick- fil- A customers get cancer. Even though I think that is a ridiculous statement, it's completely her right to say it.

I'll leave you with a quote from a former Chick-fil-A employee, Sarah Centers:

"I’ve worked at Chick-fil-A since I was 16 (now I’m 25) at more than 1 store.

I’m against gay marriage because I believe that God defines marriage as 1 man+1 woman, as long as they both shall live. Therefore, according to the far left and the pro-gay marriage agenda, I must hate gay people.

But to equate disagreement with hatred is faulty logic. I’m against smoking for various reasons, so does that mean I automatically hate all people who smoke?

To say that Chick-fil-A hates or discriminates against gay people (or anybody who differs from biblical beliefs & principles) is ridiculous and false. If they were truly discriminating, they would refuse to serve them, and, as much as possible, avoid hiring them.

In my years of working at Chick-fil-A, I’ve worked alongside many Christians—yes – but also atheists, Mormons, gays, and Muslims. Guess what? My bosses treated us all with the same dignity, honor, and respect that Chick-fil-A believes in, because of the following Christian principle: all people (including the unborn, and believers or unbelievers) are created in the image of God.

Dan Cathy is free to voice his convictions. Anybody who can’t tolerate his/the business’ “intolerance” is free to choose NOT to patronize Chick-fil-A restaurants, just as anybody who agrees with Dan Cathy or agrees to disagree with him are free to choose to EAT MORE CHIKIN!"

Political Implications of Obamacare Being Ruled Constitutional

In my previous post, I alluded to the fact that Chief Justice Roberts might have actually given the GOP an amazing gift by using perverse logic to pass off Obamacare as a tax. There have been many pundits and politicians agreeing with this idea. Even Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen is quoted as saying:
"This means that going forward in the election campaign, it will be increasingly difficult for President Obama to defend an unpopular law at an unpopular time -- thus working to Republican challenger Mitt Romney's advantage."
On the actualy day of the ruling, Romney reported receving donations from over 45,000 different sources adding up to over 4 million dollars. Obama won't release his donation numbers for that day, but seeing as he has to beg donors aboard Air Force One to not let him become the first incumbent president outraised by his opponent, I'd say Romney is in pretty good shape. Also, Obama's campaign actually spent more money than it took in last month (but after all it is Obama, so that should be expected.)
When it comes down to it, the Health Care Bill is still wildly unpopular among Americans, including the majority of independents, which could have a huge impact on the race. Not only that, but also the ruling has reenergized the Tea Party and is sure to increase GOP voter turn out. On the other hand, Obama will be losing a lot of the youth vote and must now try and re-sell this cumbersome health care bill (which he just happens to be exempt from.)
It is very easy to smear Republicans for wanting to repal Obamacare; typical liberal responses might be "You hate the poor!", "Stop being selfish!", "How could you let insurance comapnies deny someone with a preexisting condition!?"... In order to take full advatnage of his unpopular Obamacare, Romney must quickly offer new ideas and his plan to replace Obama's overhaul of our healthcare system.

Donald Trump, who can sometimes be too honest for his own good, had this to say about Obamacare:
"Let me get this straight... We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to
purchase and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress who didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a Dumbo President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government who has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke!"
...Now that has to be one of the best runon sentences I think I've ever read. Even for those who despise Trump, there is just no debating any of the ridiculous hypocrisy which he speaks of.

In the end, although I wouldve prefered to see Obamacare to be struck down in it's entirety, I am very intrigued to see if the GOP can use this ruling to their advatange and take the White House.

Mandate or Tax?

Chief Justice Roberts threw America a big curve ball today by joining the left-leaning justices in affirming that the individual mandate contained within the health care bill is simply a tax, and thus within the powers of congress to regualte. I have two major issues with the latter statement.

First, Obama promised over and over that passing his sweeping health care overhaul would not present any tax increases on the middle class: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv9iueuI3Sw&feature=player_embedded) The "no tax increase" was a big reason why Obama was able to garner so much support behind the bill. However, as soon as the argument was presented to the Supreme Court, Obama's lawyers flip flopped and tried to argue the mandate simply was just a tax increase on those people who happen to not have health care. They knew that calling it a tax was the only way they had a shot at having the bill pass as constitutional. Forget that over 50% of Americans still want it repealed, or that the bill passed as a "reconciliation" since the Democrats couldn't overcome the filibuster. Basically, the whole passage of the health care bill has been full of backroom deals, non- transparency, and straight up lies.


My second problem lies in the mandate (let's call it what it really is). Through a very loose interpretation of the powers of Congress to levy taxes, the Supreme Court now maintains that congress can essentially force you to either buy a product or be penalized. Obviously in this specific case, the product is health insurance. I find it very scary that one of the liberal Supreme Court Justices said "It is not your free choice" to stay out of the market for life... As a young healthy adult it is completely my decision whether or not I decide to buy health insurance. Here's another interesting way of looking at the whole health care debate: If the governement can regulate health care and demand everyone buy health insurance through implied powers , then by the same logic could they mandate everyone buy a hand gun as well? After all, having that extra protection would be nice wouldn't it? I don't mean to pander to the slippery slope fallacy, but it truly is pivotal that the justices realize the U.S. Government can't force me, as a free citizen, to purchase something, even if they call it a "tax".

Having said that, the only way to get rid of Obamacare is a full scale repeal at this point. Even though Eric Cantor already reports the House Republicans are drafting a repeal bill, it's a complete waste of time with Obama still in the White House. However, the bill being declared constitutional actually might help Romney's campaign. Consdering that every major poll shows that the majority of Americans still want Obamacare repealed, they now know the only way that will happen is electing Romney.

Why do Liberals Hate the Rich So Much?

Once Romney became the official GOP Presidential candidate, liberals everywhere started looking up dirt to try and smear him with. Remarkably though, up until now, there has really only been one main attacking point: his wealth. The Left is ridculing Romney for coming from a family with a lot of money, and then becoming an extremely succesful business man by buying and seeling companies with Bain. Is this really all they can come up with? His wealth and religion?
 What I find even more humorus is the fact that before becoming President, Obama was a millionaire as well. But since he's a democrat, I guess it's ok for him to make a lot of money being a "community organizer" in Chicago. (Side note: any records of what Obama accomplished while in that position? Anything to prove he earned his pay check and turned the deprived community into a better place? Oh, there isn't?)...Even further hyprocrisy is displayed by the Hollywood liberals: almost every single late night host (Leno, Letterman, and Conan just to name a few) have been making jokes about Romney's wealth as well. Isn't that ironic: multi millionaires attacking a rich person for his wealth. Is there something wrong with being succesful? The hypocrisy is laughable; I don't even see how Romney's money is a valid attacking point in any way...
Well I'll keep my comments to a minimum here, I dont want to belabor the point. However, I will share with you Neal Boortz's opinion on the matter, seeing as he can articulate it better than I ever will be able to:

"The rich basically serve two purposes in this country. First, they provide the investments, the investment capital, and the brains for the formation of new businesses. Businesses that hire people. Businesses that send millions of paychecks home each week to the un-rich.

Second, the rich are a wonderful object of ridicule, distrust, and hatred. Few things are more valuable to a politician than the envy most Americans feel for the evil rich.

Envy is a powerful emotion. Even more powerful than the emotional minefield that surrounded Bill Clinton when he reviewed his last batch of White House interns. Politicians use envy to get votes and power. And they keep that power by promising the envious that the envied will be punished: “The rich will pay their fair share of taxes if I have anything to do with it.” The truth is that the top 10% of income earners in this country pays almost 50% of all income taxes collected. I shudder to think what these job producers would be paying if our tax system were any more “fair.”

You have heard, no doubt, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Interestingly enough, our government’s own numbers show that many of the poor actually get richer, and that quite a few of the rich actually get poorer. But for the rich who do actually get richer, and the poor who remain poor .. there’s an explanation — a reason. The rich, you see, keep doing the things that make them rich; while the poor keep doing the things that make them poor."

The Ludicrous Liberal Response to Holder's Contempt Vote

In my previous post I explained how I didn't believe anyone with a "sound mind" could defend Attorney General Holder. If he is innocent, then just turn over the documents that PROVE your innocene (seems pretty straight forward, even for a liberal!) That being said, Pelosi has displayed an utter disregard for, well, common sense and any sense of polticial knowledge. I'll delve into her argument soon, but first, a brief digression about understanding how a liberal ends up at these ridiculous conclusions time and time again.

Now I used to be a huge Glenn Beck fan, I tried to watch him everyday for the full hour, as well as read every book he released. As time went on though, I realized watching his show wasn't turning me into an "informed conservative" ,per se, but rather just an arrogant one. The way Glenn presents his points is through a dichotmoty of either "go the conservative route and propser" or "listen to the left and the whole world will end." Although he placed a great emphasis on history and past presidents, he rarely presented the actual Liberal argument. For example, he assumed that there was no legitimate reason that anyone who wanted America to thrive would vote against the extension of the Bush Tax cuts at the end of last year. Honestly, I really couldn't comprehend either, and that's when I turned to Sean Hannity. On his show he routinley invites Democratic Strategists such as Joe Trippi, Democratic pollsters, and then liberal fox news contributors as well. His whole show's premise is basically him presenting his argument (i.e. the conservative view point) and then inviting a liberal to straight up debate the topic. I was immeaditely drawn to this rubric because now I can at least see where the left is coming from on certain issues, even if I don't agree. It helped me better understand the vast differences in political philoshpy between the right and left.

On a side note, wonder why you never hear any liberal trying to smear Hannity or critizing one of his quotes? It's because he backs up everything he says with facts and logic, and then proceeds to win debates against the toughest liberal opponents he can find. He is easily my favorite conservative pundit and demands an enormous amount of respect.

So why the digression? I just wanted everyone to view Pelosi's response with an open mind first and at least see where she's coming from. The point is, you won't be able to. Her argument is so laughbly bad that there is no way I can even begin to comprehend how the hell she arrived at the following conclusion. Pelosi actually believes that the reason why Republicans want to hold the Attorney General accountable is "because of his department's crackdown on State Voter ID laws".... Yes, you read the correctly. Pelosi thinks that Republicans are angry at Holder because he wants to increase voter fraud by making sure people don't have to show an ID at the polls. So what's the perfect way to get back at him? Hold him in contempt of course!!!

Now, while that is an EXTREMELY good argument (HAH!), this proves that Pelosi might indeed just be more out of touch with the American people than Obama. Does she not realize that an American border patrol agent died? Or that his parents are looking for an answer? Or that by Obama issuing an executive privilege, he's basically admitting that the "White House officials were involved in decisions that misled congress and covered up the truth", according to Speaker Boehner.

It's still just unfathomable to me that Pelosi somehow reached the conclusion she did. Really? Voter ID laws are the cause? Obama has remarkably created probably one of the most partisian adminstrations to the point where even when one of their own is clearly in the wrong, all liberals jump to his defense and blame Republicans.

When it comes down to it, I could care less if you have a "D" or an "R" in front of your name, we are all Americans. And as Americans we should come together and demand justice for Brian Terry and the family he left behind. Enough blame games and ridiculous accusations, just turn over the documents and be done with it.

The Fast and Furious Decline of Obama's Adminstration

Over a year ago, an American hero, Brian Terry, lost his life because the U.S. Government was selling  untraceble illegal firearms to the Mexican cartels. The latter statement is indeed fact, and yet somehow Obama thinks an Executive Privlege will somehow save Holder? If the White House is guilty in anyway, having the president cover up hundreds of thousands of important documents that pertain to Terry's death is not the way to go about it.

Issa is right to bring up a vote of contempt for Holder. It is unbelievable that there hasn't been more outrage from the media regarding this scandal in the first place. During one of the GOP primary debates, I believe it was Rick Perry who rightly said that Holder shouldn't be asked to resign or even be held in contempt, he should be fired immeaditely (Where is Donald Trump when you need him?)

That being said, I really can't comprehend how anybody with a sound mind can be defending Holder's contempt vote. If he is not guilty then he should just turn over the documents, end of story. But instead, you have reps like Cummings and Maloney somehow trying to twist this against Republicans with statments like calling the vote a "political witch hunt" or saying that Issa is simply trying to "overrule" the presdient.

The bottom line is that Brian Terry is dead, and Holder is withholding docuemtns that could very well bring about unaswered questions that Terry's family and the rest of America eagerly await. This scandal is a disgrace to the Obama adminstration and a symbol of the vast corruption permeating through the White House.

Obama: The Ineffective "Leader"

            These past few weeks Obama has shown himself to be a remarkably incapable and timid leader. Instead of making a decision about Libya when the violence first started, he waited until the last possible second to form a coalition and allow NATO to take the lead. But what is America’s goal in Libya? Who are these rebels fighting against Gaddafi? Whether it be Obama himself, Attorney General Eric Holder, or Hilary Clinton, the White House has been laughably incoherent regarding its foreign policy endgame in the Middle East. Is the main goal to throw Gaddafi out? Is it America’s job to intervene in all foreign affairs similar to this? If so, looks like Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain are next, right Mr. President? Vice President Biden is quoted as saying that unless there is a “direct and imminent threat to America” not only is there no reason to go to war (forget about getting Congressional approval or following the War Powers Act, the “Anointed One” is above that, obviously), but also Biden claims he would move to impeach any president that disobeys this principle. Obviously, this quote was in regard to Bush’s wars, and shows blatant hypocrisy from the current White House administration, yet again. Obama delayed his talks on Libyan policy for a week due to “scheduling conflicts.” (really?) Yet he was still able to pick his March Madness brackets on ESPN and go golfing. After finally addressing the issue to the public, which seemed more like a campaign speech, Obama changed his policies yet again. By “transferring” command to NATO, Obama is just covering up possible failures while continuing to put our troops in harm’s way. Yes, there could be a case made for the Libyan war, but Obama is simply not able to articulate any such reason for it in a coherent manner that doesn’t make him look like a hypocrite.

            Aside from these foreign affairs, there’s another battle going on right at home: the battle of the budget. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was recorded on a phone conversation telling his fellow democrats to label Speaker Boehner as “extreme” and link him to the Tea Party so that they might get a better compromise on spending cuts. That being said, liberals are willing to cut about 20 billion dollars for the rest of the fiscal year. Seeing as America BORROWS 4 billion dollars per day, the fact that Chuck and his fellow liberals are trying to turn saving this country into a political game is utterly ridiculous. 20 billion dollars is nothing when Obama’s budget calls for a 1.5 TRILLION dollar deficit. All Republicans are asking for is to return to the spending levels of the Clinton years, which still isn’t enough, but at least it’s a start. Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) plans on releasing the Republican budget soon, which is reported to have much more serious cuts, thankfully. Rest assured, 2012 will be an epic battle of spending cuts centered primarily around entitlement programs. Obama needs to step up and take control of his party. America is at a crossroads and trying to play politics with the opposition will get us nowhere.