I told you so.
Part of Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America is to not only marginalize the white race, but now it’s clear that he means to make whitey pay.
I wrote about it here
The Tea Party is a threat to national security, the GOP is a threat, the NRA is a threat, returning vets are a threat. And every one of them is racist. Just ask Eric Holder and Barack Obama. Thus it is critical to be sure they lose their voices in the electoral process in this country. Barack Obama will have then made good on his promise to fundamentally change the US.
and here.
Tom Perez is a liar. His view is that whites are not entitled to the same Constitutional protections as other races. His goals are to import millions of latinos, share your prosperity with them and marginalize the white race in this country. This is all part of the Obama Fundamental Transformation of the United States of America.
Obama is flooding the country with illegal aliens and blocking their deportation. Since 9-11, Muslim immigration has exploded. The FBI can’t keep up. Illegals are killing Americans routinely and we can’t get rid of them.
Now Obama plots to make the lives of Caucasians in America miserable.
Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites.
This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.
Big Brother Barack wants the databases operational before he leaves office, and much of the data in them will be posted online.
This information will serve as the fuel for endless litigation against white people in the US:
Count on a flood of private lawsuits to piggyback federal discrimination claims, as civil-rights lawyers use the new federal discipline data in their legal strategies against the supposedly racist US school system.
Even if no one has complained about discrimination, even if there is no other evidence of racism, the numbers themselves will “prove” that things are unfair.
Such databases have never before existed. Obama is presiding over the largest consolidation of personal data in US history. He is creating a diversity police state where government race cops and civil-rights lawyers will micromanage demographic outcomes in virtually every aspect of society.
The first black president, quite brilliantly, has built a quasi-reparations infrastructure perpetually fed by racial data that will outlast his administration.
Obama plainly said that he intended to “fundamentally transform” the United States. Without question it his goal to reduce Caucasians to a minority and sharply diminish their influence while wringing from them every bit of cash possible and elevating the presence of Islam in America. Allen West:
“This is my clear and succinct message to white Americans. How long will it be before ‘you people’ realize you have elevated someone to the office of president who abjectly despises you – not to mention his henchman Holder. Combined they are the most vile and disgusting racists – not you.”
See author page
One need only compare Obama’s responses between the Michael Brown death and the murder of the young woman in SF by an illegal alien.
@Pete:
Or Chris Kyle
@drjohn:
The tragedy we are witnessing as Obama hacks away at the fiber of what makes America great, replacing it with the delusional misperception of what the left defines as “equality” and ” social justice”, will not be understood by the majority of Americans until it fully destroyed. As I have said before, reality is a harsh mistress.
Our good doctor’s fair haired boy Trump! Zooms into his biggest polling lead yet
25%
But sadly, performs much worse against Hillary
The woman our good doctor declared brain damaged after her fall
@John:
John
Please show us how Trump is my “fair haired boy” or risk appearing as disingenuous as the usual idiot liberal. Let me help you. Start here:
http://www.floppingaces.net/2015/07/06/fact-checking-trump/
A few years ago a piece like this would have read like complete tinfoil hattery. It’s really creepy when as crazy as this post sounds there isn’t a better explanation for what we’re seeing today
OK lefties, here is a chance to for you guys to add something constructive to the conversation. Please prove us wrong here – seriously.
Brother Bob, I fear you may be asking too much of the lefties. They don’t do constructive. They don’t build, they tear down.
When it became apparent Obama would not lower the American Flag at the White House to half staff in honor of these fallen soldiers, people started doing it at their own homes and businesses.
Today, the US Congress will fly its flag at half staff.
Obama has taken sides.
Politics is now more of a war to Obama than actual war is to him!
Nanny 250-300 active duty military kill themselves each year. I think this is much worse than what happened in Chattanooga. But anti muslim rhetoric only wishes to focus on rare killings. It is like the rabid right wants to ENCOURAGE more of that by politicizing a tradgedy, just as they tried and failed to do with BENGHAZI !!!!
@drjohn: or the Marines and sailor that were just murdered by a muslim terrorist
IMHO every democrat should hang their heads in shame. Their leader is a racist muslim communist bent on ruining this country and they are complicit.
Aside from conspiracy theorizing, is it really a possibility that Obama might refuse to leave office? While I think it is at least in the back of his mind, is it really feasible that he would attempt it (lots of elements are in place to make such suspicions sound) and would the government and military (not to mention the public) tolerate the attempt?
All the efforts to diminish the influence of the US could, at this point, be reversed once Obama is out of office (and assuming Hillary does not make it in). So, the question in my mind is, how to make these “fundamental transformations” (aka, US destruction) permanent and irreversible? The ONLY way would be through a third (or perpetual) term.
This just in; the White House is lowering the flag to half-mast. It’s despicable that he had to be shamed into such an act of respect. But, then again, he is a despicable person.
@john:
What about the rest of the story? How about the fact that a great percentage of the veterans that commit suicide are too young to have been in Vietnam and too old to have served in Iraq or Afghanistan and that the percentages of veterans who commit suicide is less than the percentages of suicide among the general public.
I know you lefties like to play on that short sound bite but when you look at the actual stats, veterans are committing suicide in lesser percentages than the civilian population.
And what a lame excuse for you to use to diminish what happened in Chattanooga. What happened in Chattanooga was not a “tragedy”, it was an act of war by a radical Islamist, just as Fort Hood was an act of war by a Soldier of Allah.
Get you head out of your rear. We are at war with radical, fundamentalist Islam. And we better get the message soon. When our soldiers are safer in Afghanistan and Iraq than they are in Chattanooga, or on a U.S. military base, we know that what this current Administration is doing is not working. Oh, yeah, you’ll probably agree that those soldiers not wearing their uniforms at recruitment centers and pulling down the blinds is the answer. Your gun control agenda is more important that the lives of our soldiers.
Liberalism is most definitely a mental illness.
@Brother Bob: It’s still tinfoil hattery BB—talk of a 3rd term-ridiculous. Anti-white–your paranoia.
Equality for minorities—is there something wrong with that? Is that unconstitutional? anti American?
Semper Fi
@rich wheeler:
When you start dictating where people live, yeah, it is anti-American. When you start creating equal outcomes regardless of effort, it is anti-American. When you start redistributing wealth, it’s Communism.
The Declaration of Independence promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness- not the guarantee of it.
Quick question:
Why do you folks waste your time living in fear all the time?
Try to embrace the concept of “America The Brave” instead of whining about the big bad black guy who is out to get you. (Which he ain’t)
/just sayin’
@drjohn: The word equality shows up too much in our founding documents for anyone to pretend it is not the American way–
Equality of opportunity.
@Rich Wheeler:
Equality of opportunity, yes.
Equality of outcome, no.
In the Declaration of Independence it says:
The men are equal.
The pursuit of happiness may vary, as might the outcome of that pursuit.
what Obama has tried to do is pretend the words mean the outcome of equality (economically) is somehow guaranteed by our Founding Documents.
It is NOT.
IF it had been we would not have had some elected officials who were poorer than others, in our earliest years.
Obviously that was not the case.
Equality is in terms of opportunity, not in terms of outcome.
Individual whites, blacks, Asians, Hispanics and others can each become rich in America.
But not all of them even try to.
Want to destroy incentive?
Keep on the path you are on.
@Gavin:
Funny, I recall the left was in total fear of GWB during his term. A wider perspective might help you along your way.
@Rich Wheeler: Rich America is a country of equality. What each American chooses to do with this equality is the responsibility of the American. It should NOT be the responsibility of our government to dictate the outcome.
@rich wheeler: Gosh, it’s such a relief to have you dispel those concerns. Whew.
Equality is the very basis of our Constitution, though it has not always been employed even-handedly. However, taking one groups rights away and bestowing false rights to another is not Constitutional, as is punitive steps towards people who never had anything whatsoever to do with the subjugation of anyone else.
@Brother Bob:
But that’s not the way it works. An author should be able to factually prove his thesis. When no proof is offered, it’s not the readers job to run out and do his research for him. As an “author” yourself, I surprised you don’t know that. This retread post is just racial fearmongering interspersed with none-too-subtle dog whistling.
Why don’t you prove, like with properly sourced facts, that this is accusation is true and not utterly fabricated. Good luck
@Gavin:
Ain’t he? The one with the power of the EPA, HUD, IRS, DOJ has not been systematically attacking whites while excusing the violence and destruction enacted by blacks at every false accusation of white racism?
@Tom:
Pointing out the factual signs provided by the very actions of this administration is the proof.
@Bill:
Nonsense response. Do you have an actual specific answer to the question, or do you think someone’s paying you by the word on the FA comments section?
@Tom: Which part of obvious are you incapable of understanding? All of it?
@Bill:
I don’t like obvious, which means everything and nothing. I like specifics. If your point is you’re obviously intellectually incapable of providing any specifics to prove your point, I agree. I think I’m done with you. Where’s Brother Blob?
@Tom:
Sure, I’ll just post my secret recording of Obama admitting it. LOL.
Methinks the liberal protesteth too much. Your hypersensitivity to this issue is evidence aplenty that you know it to be true.
FTA:
Lawsuits can only win if a jury says so.
What can happen is neighborhoods can put out welcome mats for more diverse new residents.
What happened when whites started buying up (and renting) in high-black areas?
The blacks living there start screaming, ”Gentrification!” and blaming the whites for higher rents.
What would happen if there were more blacks fled black enclaves to live spread out into paler neighborhoods?
Many so-called safe Dem seats in the House would go away.
Seeing this as the logical outcome I suspect many poorer black house Districts will bridle against equalizing outcome of living arrangements.
I really see more push back from the blacks and their now safe Dem reps than I do from whites in Beverly Hills or Silicon Valley.
@drjohn:
i guess I am hypersensitive to people posting accusations of racism and genocide when they have zero proof. It’s not very nice, Dr John. It’s called being a liar. And it’s rather offensive, in fact, to decent Americans who aren’t deep into this racist click-bait swamp you inhabit. You are the lowest form of life on the Internet, a person who writes anything to appeal to the lowest tendencies of man.
Provide evidence for what you wrote or admit you’re a liar.
@Nanny G:
Didn’t you move to Utah? It’s time to stop being afraid of the horrible blacks. Unless it’s your favorite hobby, of course.
@Tom: Utah has plenty of Africans, Tom.
These are terrific people.
Our Nigerian neighbor and his family of five have around the same acreage as we do (about 10 acres).
Our entire township (unincorporated area near Salt Lake City) is divided into small acreages which allow horse ownership but not chickens.
Most people use their land to attract game animals for hunting.
That’s what we do.
No horse, but deer, ducks, geese, quail and rabbits.
@Tom:
You’re an amusing little guy, Tom.
@drjohn:
I guess that’s your amusing little way of backing down and admitting your intellectual bankruptcy. Maybe you should spent less time trolling the message boards or white power websites looking for material to steal and more time crafting posts that can withstand minimal scrutiny. You’re dismissed. Now where is Brother Bozo, the tough guy?
When anyone, particularly African-American Democrats view reports like PREGNANCY OUTCOMES, signed by de Blazio, (BUREAU OF VITAL STATISTICS, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE 125 WORTH STREET, CN 7, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 10013). . . . . . how is it possible that they would continue to support abortions on demand and orgs like Planned Parenthood?
Reading the numbers, it is evident that de Blazio is proud of a couple of things . . . 1) a drop in Non-Hispanic Black births, and 2) Non-Hispanic Blacks have vastly more abortions than Asian and Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, or Non-Hispanic Whites.
When you look at the numbers for Non-Hispanic Blacks, it is nothing short of genocide. Promoting birth control is one thing, . . . promoting rampant availability of abortions is quite another. Planned Parenthood is operating a long distance from “educating”. How is it that Democrats get away with it? How do they get away with racial suppression?
I understand the need to have control over your own life and body, however, the ease with which abortions have become so prevalent and easily performed, suggests to me that Democratic Non-Hispanic Blacks should reconsider their wholesale support of Democrat marketing of free and easily had abortions. This is self-hating and destructive.
How is this good for any members of the American community, . . . black, white, asian, hispanic, arab, . . . ? It isn’t.
@James Raider, #35:
The numbers are a result of the freely made choices of individual women. The word “genocide” describes something entirely different.
Those who would deprive women of the freedom to make such individual choices concerning their own bodies and their own reproductive function are often the same people who would cut social program support for women and their children. It always strikes me as odd that some people seem to be more concerned about children that haven’t come into existence than those who already have.
@Greg: Well said.
@Nanny G: Use your 10 acres to attract animals to kill—Why would you shoot a sentient being—-Do you enjoy that? I’ve heard dogs taste pretty good–are you shooting them?
@Greg:
When are you going to get it through your left wing brain that it is not a choice, IT IS A BABY. At 12 weeks, a unborn baby has a nose, fingers, toes, arms and legs, eyes, and basically looks like it will when it is born except thinner.
A choice? That’s what you call infanticide? Because that is exactly what it is, Greggie Goebbels. The killing of another human being. And now we know that Planned Parenthood is harvesting the organs of those murdered babies.
Here is a question you won’t answer: if it is just a clump of cells, how can Planned Parenthood be selling the livers of those babies. A clump of cells does not a liver have, but a human being does.
You left wingers claim to be so supportive of blacks, yet you remain silent of the slaughter of millions of black babies. Margaret Sanger, a virulent racist, would be proud.
@Tom:
Your arrogance and race-baiting are pretty weak. It isn’t conservatives belittling Justice Thomas for not being an “authentic black”. Dr. Ben Carson and LTC Allen West are both held in high regard by conservatives, and it is because of the content of their characters – not the melanin content of their skin. Obama’s skin color isn’t the reason conservatives oppose him, it is the (sorely lacking) content of his character, and his (Obama’s) racist acts while in office.
How do you explain the rabid, politically motivated manner in which Obama responded to the death of Michael Brown (sending in Eric Holder and the DOJ to investigate for racism on the part of the police officer who has been cleared of any wrongdoing by the actual facts of the case; calling the parents of Michael Brown to offer condolences – for a young man who died because he chose to attack a police officer; sending White House officials to Michael Brown’s funeral – http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/08/24/342868844/3-white-house-aides-to-attend-michael-browns-funeral-service)
— versus the deafening silence of Obama with regard to the cold-blooded murder of Kathryn Steinle by an illegal alien. Obama has not called Ms. Steinle’s parents, nor sent the AG out to investigate the SF officials for operating a “sanctuary city”.
Even the Washington Post has published an Op-Ed calling Obama out for his double standard: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-silence-on-kathryn-steinle-killing-is-deafening/2015/07/13/06f5730e-2959-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html
Let’s not forget one of the first acts of Obama’s radical AG, when Eric Holder threw out the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia from the 2008 election.
So don’t act like there is no indication of Obama’s racial antipathy towards whites. Even the leftwing Washington Post seems to have noticed.
@Greg:
Faulty leftist logic.
“If you aren’t willing to pay for other people’s children, then you have to not only support murdering babies in the womb, but you have to pay taxes for the government to subsidize the murder of the unborn as well”
@Greg: Greggie Greggie Greggie, and who are you to choose which are most important?? In God’s eyes they are equal. The most innocent are in the mothers womb and when you decide they are not you know not what you are saying. To sell the body parts of those who are murdered in the womb is the most disgusting thing and to defend that is deplorable even beyond what I would consider just a out of touch liberal. As for those already born I need proof that Republicans are guilty of your accusation!! Remember Greggie real proof!!
@Pete:
Those are all wonderful strawmen, Pete. Thanks for trotting them out. Now do you have evidence that Obama is trying to “reduce Caucasians to a minority”?
@retire05, #39:
When are you going to get it through your own head that not everyone shares your opinion about that definition, and that you don’t have a God-given right to dictate that people who don’t should make their own personal moral decisions in accordance with your beliefs rather than their own?
@Greg:
Have any kids, Greg?
@Tom:
Sure. Flooding the country with illegals. Rewarding the violation of American law.
@Pete:
Hey, Pete, you’re a scientist, tell me, as an affluent, white, middle-aged man, statistically, how much more dangerous is your life right now since Obama came into office than before? Please, just point me to the evidence. What is your life expectancy in the Age of Obama compared to a black man’s? I assume you think you have cause, but let’s see the proof. Because what I see is an embittered, whiny, angry man of privledge eager to wrest the mantle of victimhood from those who actually have skin in the game. Please prove me wrong. Prove that you’re the real victim of racism. Facts only, please.
@Greg:
And in your opinion, exactly what is it that is being aborted at 12 weeks gestation?
What would you call it, Greggie Goebbels?
Why is it that so many men support abortion? I think it is because it gets you off the hook for supporting the results of your good time. No child support; no responsibility toward anyone but your selfish selves.
Women have been sold a bill of goods that free love is a good thing. Only problem with that is it is not free when there is a price to pay like killing your own child because of a man who doesn’t give a damn about you and you were only a piece of a$$ to him.
Anyone who supports the killing of the unborn, using a lame excuse that it is not a killing, but a choice, is as despicable as the doctors who perform those abortions.
But abortion is not the only Marxist policy you support. Fortunately for you, your life was more important to someone else than all those murdered babies are to you.
@drjohn:
So Obama is just going to bring in enough illegals to make a nation that’s 78% white today a minority white nation? And it’s going to happen in the year he has left in office? And he’s going to accomplish this while simultaneously deporting more immigrants than any President in history? http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/02/u-s-deportations-of-immigrants-reach-record-high-in-2013/
Is that really your theory? I guess when every white President turns a blind eye to migrant workers it’s hardly worth mentioning. But when the President is black, we need to take it very seriously.
@retire05: #39
. . . And has also had a SOUL for 12 weeks.
But when you’re genociding, . . . you don’t want to know.
@Rich Wheeler: Didn’t realize you were a vegan.
I had a homemade veggie sandwich today……homemade 21 seeded bread, avocado, alfalfa sprouts, tomato, cucumber, red onion, lettuce…..all homegrown in a small side garden of raised beds (because of the rabbits).
But I’m planning local raised lamb tomorrow. (Native Ute owned ranch)
And local raised beef steak day after that. (Asian owned ranch)
Sometimes I let other people have all the fun of hunting them and/or killing and cleaning them.
Although a local shooting on our block in LB, Ca., was a big motivator to leaving CA, it was the ambient noise of the neighborhood that was really getting on my nerves.
Add to that the now-legal chickens and goats (as long as they are at least 10 FEET from your neighbor’s property) and the noise was only bound to get much worse.
It was already as high as the sound of an airport at times.
@Tom:
Well, you’ve more than consumed your allotment of Obama Kool-Aid, haven’t you? The numbers put out by [left leaning] Pew are the bogus numbers the Administration is trying to convince morons like you are true. They are not. The Obama administration counts even those illegals who set one foot into the Rio Grande and are turned back by the Border Patrol, counting them as “deportations” when that has never been done before. It’s all so the bean counters can make Obama look tough on illegal immigration as he releases felon illegal aliens into our communities who go on to murder Americans.
“Jeh Johnson, President Obama’s new secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, this week admitted that “a very large fraction” of deportations aren’t really that but instead “turn-backs” at the border.
During questioning on Capitol Hill, Johnson confirmed that his agency’s use of border security metrics inflate the reported number of deportations of illegal immigrants – statistics for which Obama takes heat from the left even though true deportations actually are down sharply.
“We managed to remove 368,000 people last year and my understanding is that 98 percent of those fit within our removal priorities,” Johnson noted Tuesday at a DHS budget hearing before the House Appropriations Committee (beginning at 1:50 in this video).
Seconds earlier, however, Johnson had conceded that “a very large fraction of that 368,000, and I don’t know the number offhand … are basically border removals, where they’re apprehended in or around the border” and are “in the country for a very short period of time.”
This prompted Rep John Culberson (R–Texas) to say that fraction tops 50 percent as he questioned DHS’s methods of calculating removals.
“Under the Obama administration, more than half of those removals that were attributed to ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] were actually the result of Border Patrol arrests,” Culberson said. “They wouldn’t have been counted in prior administrations.”
“Right,” Johnson conceded, later also noting that “apprehension levels at the border have been going down recently.”
“So you really can’t actually use that number,” Culberson challenged, calling attention to Obama’s statement in 2011 that the deportation statistics are “deceptive” because “apprehending folks at the border and just sending them back” is “counted as a deportation.” He added:
“That’s never been done before in previous administrations. I know that the Bush administration never counted folks that were removed by the Border Patrol as being deported by ICE.”
Johnson’s remarks came on the heels of his appearance at another House hearing earlier this month during which Rep. Lamar Smith (R–Texas) blasted the Obama administration’s claims of record-breaking deportation numbers even though “turn-backs” at the border are included in the figure.”
But hey, you keep hollering “whoop, whoop, whoop” when it comes to Obama. It only shows that you will believe anything.
@Tom:
What you see regarding who I am, through the delusional leftwing blinders you insist on wearing, is as irrelevant as it is wrong. Trotting out the ridiculous “white privilege” nonsense, as you falsely characterize whatever success or affluence I may have as if it is solely the color of my skin that I have such, rather than the decades of hard work in which I have engaged, is arguably racist. Take up your bogus strawman inference with the Washington Post editorial page. The fact that Obama, as president, took it upon himself to politicize the deaths of 2 black hoodlums (Martin and Brown) whose personal decisions to act violently led to their deaths, while completely ignoring Kathyrn Steinle’s murder, sends a political message that white lives don’t matter as much as the lives of blacks.
@Greg: Greggie Greggie Greggie, I know you don’t share my opinion and I could care less because you and I will both have to answer for our choices in life. My point is if a woman wants, in my opinion, to commit murder she can because in our country she has a choice. But and this is where my rights should be just as important as any citizen in this country and protected by the Constitution at least up to this date is that I believe this is murder and I should NOT be forced to pay for it!! Just like I should NOT be forced to pay welfare for those who break my countries laws an enter my country illegally!! Your President and sadly mine has made every citizens life a little more at risk because of his failed policies and his belief we should allow 11 million illegals to be granted immunity and open our borders to those who can just walk across them. If you try and blame Republicans for lack of resources then your the fool based upon such waste!! Obola is a failed President and I do NOT support the idea of Sanctuary Cities that cost American lives!!
@retire05, #48:
I can understand why people eventually come to the conclusion that there’s simply no point attempting to have rational discussions with people such as yourself. Basically, you’re no different than the Taliban. You just have a different set of inflexible positions and rules that everyone else must accept or be made to live by. You’ll talk about personal freedoms, the the limits are set by what you believe and what you think is proper.
You or I can define a 12-week-old fetus as we like. What matters is how the person who is pregnant defines it. In my opinion a person has a fundamental right to sovereign control over their own body. That includes a right to terminate a pregnancy. It’s that person’s body and that person’s moral decision. Period. Whether you or I approve is immaterial. Some people would mandate the protection of the rights of a “baby” from the moment of conception. Individual rights have to be defended from such people. It doesn’t matter how passionately they hold their opinions. That isn’t a measure of their truth, or of the weight they should carry in the public discourse. Suicide bombers passionately hold their opinions. That doesn’t make them right. It makes them fanatics.
Gregg on a rant again
Do I get to define who is legal to have sex with if I believe 12 is adult enough
That fetus isn’t human it’s just a thing that doesn’t feel pain
Does the fetus have any recourse if mom wants to do crack while pregnant because it’s moms body
What total bs
It’s just all about me, no responsibility but what their wishes are or how society can help them
Responsibility is not getting pregnant in the first place but the liberal argument is that people are too stupid to curb their lustful libidos
Blah blah blah
Yep the left turns everyone into needy children
Perhaps you should first explain how your hypothetical question about having sex with 12-year-old children relates to the assertion that a woman has a fundamental, inalienable right to exercise sovereign control of <em<her own body.
Your opinion that she looses this sovereign right owing to a failure to conduct herself as you deem proper is presumptuous bullshit. Who makes anyone accountable to you for failure to observe your rules?
Because it’s all about what liberals define as themselves
No morals other than what they decide is right for them .
They bear no responsibility for their actions but society does
If she doesn’t want to have a child she can damn we’ll take necessary precautions before hand using her own money or keep her legs shut
But no Gregg the liberal female bears no responsibility in killing her fetus because she was too irresponsible to do the right thing on the first place
By the way you want us to pay for said abortions and subsidize is through sharing medical costs but want us to shut up about it
Where’s our recourse Gregg
Very presumptive of you to lay this cost on us and then bitch about accountability
Blah blah blah no responsibility other than what you can get your neighbor to pay gor
@Greg:
If she has inalienable rights to her body why does anyone else have to support what she does or support what comes out of that body?
By your logic we are all condemned to indentured servitude.
@James raider:
Heartbeat within days.
Brain activity in 40 days
@Tom:
Obama: Economic Justice ‘Remains Our Great Unfinished Business’
Boom goes the dynamite
@Greg:
Complete lack of self-awareness glaringly displayed here vis a vis the pro-homogamy lobby going jihad demanding complete submission to their ideology, under pain of government fines and legal harassment.
Not that abortion is the original topic of this thread, but the “its her body to do with as she chooses” doesn’t hold water from a scientific standpoint, when she is choosing to terminate the unique and separate DNA-having developing human that is inside her uterus. The developing human that the butchers of Planned Parenthood crush in a manner to harvest their human organs for profit….
Listen carefully to this man:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhiB8mtQ3Pg
He’s talking about how the Feds sweeten the deal (temporarily) so that small towns, rural counties and Northern states (like Minnesota) are tempted into accepting tens of thousands of immigrants who refuse to assimilate.
He’s warning of the high price tag which is only starting to come due locally.
He points out how many immigrants are being pushed into places you’d never imagine, like little towns in Minn. with many and varied bad consequences.
It isn’t that they are brown and Minn. was white.
It’s the forms of Islam they bring, the jihad, the attitude that not working, but living off the infidel is deserved because they are superior as Muslims.
@DrJohn: Tom won’t get it… Tom won’t allow himself to get it for, then, he will realize he is in the same boat as the rest of us (assuming Tom is white).
Assuming Tom is black, he is obviously relishing the moment of using the power of government to stomp down on those who, mostly, supported the elimination of that practice on others.
In Obama’s agenda, he ignores the fact that had it not been for some powerful white allies (allies that were not of HIS party), blacks could not have achieved their civil rights. All whites are lumped into the category of the wealthy land-owner enslaving the powerless. In the past, that was called bigotry, prejudice and racism.
@Pete, #63:
A woman has a fundamental, inalienable right to exercise sovereign control over her own body. This is not a scientific principle. It’s a fundamental moral tenet. Without it, there can be no true social equality between men and women.
The state has no business compelling a woman to continue a pregnancy and give birth against her will. The state has no business becoming the instrument of any religion or church that would compel a woman to continue a pregnancy and give birth against her will. Not in America, at least.
@Greg: The woman had the choice you refer to is when she spreads her legs and becomes pregnant, at that point she made here choice. Now if another life is created she can choose to abort but why Greggie should others have to pay for it??
According to who? According to you, or to some preacher, or to some politician trolling for votes? Do you feel you need the help of the church and the state to keep your women in line?
Supporting the freedom to choose is not an endorsement of the particular choices people make. It’s an endorsement of the freedom itself. It establishes a line around an individual’s private life that the state or church may not cross. Some people don’t seem to want such an inviolable boundary to exist, even if it’s as close as a person’s skin.
@Greg:
So you think that only religious people are against abortion? That point of view only shows, once again, what a total idiot you are.
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
“There was a time when the lines seemed clearer and the slogans said everything. Pro-lifers were Jesus-loving Pope-followers with a passion for sticking rosaries on ovaries, and atheists were quick to respond with “Keep your theology off my biology!”
But then lines began to blur. Atheist and civil libertarian journalist Nat Hentoff said that “Being without theology isn’t the slightest hindrance to being pro-life.” Atheist philosophy professor Don Marquis declared abortion is “immoral” because it denies developing fetuses “a future like ours.” The host of CFI’s Point of Inquiry, Robert M. Price, author of books like Jesus is Dead and The Case Against the Case for Christ, called abortion “second-degree murder” on one of his podcasts.
Well, at least we still have the “Four Horsemen” safely in our ranks, right? Not quite. Even our beloved Christopher Hitchens considered “the occupant of the womb as a candidate member of society.” He also argued that “the unborn entity has a right on its side” and identified himself as involved with the pro-life movement.
What the heck are we atheists supposed to do with all our “Keep your rosaries…” stickers now?”
That was written by the president of Pro-Life Humanists.
Tell me, Greggie Goebbles, have you ever witnessed an abortion? Did it thrill you to watch a tiny human being being ripped from its mother’s womb? There’s an arm, oh, and fingers, Next the leg. Look at the tiny toes. How about that head? Isn’t that crush job great? Now it looks like a clump of cells. See how soft the skull was? Now you can’t tell the point where the eyes were from where the nose was. It’s dead now. Throw it in the trash can. You know, the one labeled “Medical Waste“.
What a pathetic excuse you are for a human being. Somewhere you lost your humanity for the cause of radical leftist agenda. I would say “shame on you” but you have proven too many times that you are incapable of shame.
Like I said before: you would have made a great Nazi.
@retire05, #69:
In 1943, the Nazis made providing abortion services to any Aryan woman a capital offense. They would have loved your views.
A case of curious reversals.
@Greg:
And like the Nazis, your humanity is in the eye of the beholder. You view unborn babies as not human. The Nazis viewed the Jews, homosexuals and gypsies the same way.
So your view that an unborn human is not really human is no different than theirs. You just support the annihilation of a different sub-group.
Get better talking points, Gullible Greggie; you’re failing miserably, which you are wont to do with regularity.
Now, answer the question; have you ever personally witnessed an abortion? Or are you going to hide again pretending that it will go unnoticed that you continue to refuse to answer questions while you seem to think others should answer yours?
And why are you here so much? Do you not have a job, a hobby or a family? I would imagine you are a pretty lonely person since you post here so often. How sad.
@Greg: Greggie Greggie Greggie, what about the freedoms provided me under the Constitution? Please tell me why I should pay for a woman’s choice to murder her unborn child?
@Common Sense, #73:
You aren’t paying for abortions. The Hyde Amendment has specifically banned the use of federal money to fund abortion services for the past 38 years.
Abortions account for only around 3 percent of the women’s health services that are provided by Planned Parenthood. In some locations, it is the only readily available source of the other 97 percent of reproductive health care services it provides.
@Greg:
So exactly how does Planned Parenthood separate the 1/2 billion dollars they receive from the federal government via taxpayer dollars to make sure they are not using any of that money for abortions? Come on, Gullible Greggie, show what a tax genius you are by explaining that.
Then if they shut down their abortions operations, they are not really going to be hurt, are they? So why fight so hard to slaughter babies if they are not really benefitting financially?
Oh, that’s right; you don’t answer questions. Because you have to go to the internet do try to find one and when you can’t, you just move on.
You’re a pathetic joke.
If govt subsidizes planned parenthood than yes we are.
You can’t compartmentalize money it’s like saying no German Jewish tax dollars went to the death camps because it only accounted for 1.5 percent of tax revenue
What bs logic
@Matt:
That is why I call him Greggie Gobbels. He’s just a mouthpiece (albeit not a very intelligent one) for the far left.
Greggie is such a good little Nazi.
@Greg: Greggie Greggie Greggie, does Planned Parenthood segment their abortion payments from the government so the Hyde Amendment is properly administered?
@retire05, #75:
I would guess they utilize a complex accounting tool known as arithmetic.
What are you arguing? That specific, individual dollars form a magical link of culpability between a particular taxpayer and a particular expenditure that he or she disapproves of? Pardon my saying, but that’s a goofy premise. Dollars paid in taxes become anonymous once they’re gone into the general revenue. The only way to sort them is arithmetically. They have no individual identity.
Private sector donations to Planned Parenthood are more than sufficient to cover the 3 percent of its budget that funds abortion services. You do realize that Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization that receives private donations, I assume. Maybe you’re so busy hating the organization that you’ve never bothered to check.
@DrJohn:
First of all, no one says that anymore. Second, this link proves nothing but your inability to mount an argument in your own words. Seems par for the course since most of your posts are cobbled together from whatever you find floating around on Internet that you use to build a shaky argument for your foregone conclusion. Obama’s understanding of the history of African Americans is hardly radical. On domestic issues he is squarely in the liberal Democrat tradition and nothing he advocates would seem strange coming from Hilary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren or any number of liberal Democrats. Except of course, he’s black and that’s the thing you can’t get over and need to keep coming back to (well, that and his Muslim background). You’re just throwing sh*t at the wall hoping something will stick. I guarantee you would never in a million years put your real name behind garbage like this if you thought it would get back to a former African American colleague or patient.
@Greg:
So basically, you remain clueless.
Let me tell you how it works in the real world (not the world of humanist idealistic progressives): if you live in a house but have a garage out back that you use to run a charity, you don’t get to put donations to that charity in your household account. You also don’t get to guess what percentage of your light bill goes to the building used for the charity (a good way to get audited by the IRS). You have to be quite specific about what the expenses for the charity are.
Now, PP is a “charity” (a bastardization of the word if ever there was one). You claims they can separate out the money spend on abortion facilities. Since their buildings house not only the other services they provide, but the abortion facilities as well, how do they know what the portion of their light bill goes strictly to the abortion facility?
BINGO! Greggie. Once that money goes into the federal coffers, there is NO way to determine where they come from. And there is no way for PP to separate any funding/donations they garner to apply specifically to abortion services.
I know they are a 501(c)3 that should not be allowed to charge for their services (which they do) if they are a charity. Do you think the Salvation Army charges for their services?
If it were left up to me, I would shut down every PP building in the U.S. and I would start with their largest building which is located in Houston in Sheila Jackson-Lee’s district which is almost exclusively BLACK. So Congratulations, you’re supporting a organization who builds their largest clinics in black neighborhoods so they can continue with Margaret Sanger’s goal of eugenics by killing black babies.
@Tom:
How do you know? Have you polled all 314 million people in the U.S.?
There is hardly anything “traditional” about the progressive viewpoints of Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren (fake Cherokee) or even Obama. They are so far from the “tradition” of FDR or JFK that the two previous Presidents would not recognize them as part of the Democratic Party.
No, Obama is a mulatto. His linage is just as much white as it is black. But like you, he decided there was power in the race card.
@Pete:
Pete, I find it sad that you’re such a rigidly close-minded ideologue, because I know that you’re also a very intelligent, articulate and (in some matters) very thoughtful person. You’re empathy is deep in certain channels and seemingly non-existent in others. In regards to Obama’s views on the current African American experience, and more specifically the experience of black males vis a vis those the State endows with lethal power, there is a premise and stated potential solutions. I don’t expect you to agree with Obama’s prescriptions for the problems, but you insists in denying the premise entirely, sticking to old right wing talking points. You are losing that argument, even on your side. The evidence is too overwhelming. Rand Paul and Rick Perry, to name two prominent Republicans, to their credit have both more or less granted that Obama’s basic premise is valid, while disagreeing, of course, on what to do about it. You are being left behind, Pete. When someone like you, who posseses the intellect some of these fellow commenters here will never have, refuses to objectively look at the same overwhelming evidence that Paul and Perry have contended with, and you still come down on the side of ignorance and intolerance, you seem – at best – a rabid ideologue. And at worst you’re allied with people who just hate black people. If Rick Perry can’t hide from the truth anymore, I fail to see how you can.
@retire05:
Yes, I did. And, don’t have a cow, man, but only old morons thought it was still a cool zinger.
Greg
Didn’t see your answer. Do you have any kids?
@Tom:
How many kids do you have, Tom?
@retire05, #81:
I stated that they don’t spend more on the 3 percent of their total budget that goes toward providing abortion services than they receive from non-governmental sources. Hence, money they receive from governmental sources is not being used to pay for or subsidize abortion services.
See how that works? It’s a rudimentary exercise in logic—which may be an unfamiliar concept to you—and simple arithmetic.
That is true of all money going into federal coffers. Nobody’s personal tax dollars are marked for physical tracking purposes. The only possible indicator is whether other funds are received sufficient to cover abortion service costs. If there are more than sufficient funds from other sources—which is the case—no federal support or subsidy exists. If there were less than sufficient funds, Planned Parenthood would be in violation of the Hyde Amendment. We would rather quickly hear about it from the anti-choice side of the argument.
@drjohn, #85:
I do not. This isn’t relevant to my thinking. I like children. I worry about those of the future as well as the present. (Environmental concerns stem from that.) Generally speaking, children are far more worthy of our care, attention, support, and protection than adults. Children aren’t to blame for the screwed up state of the world or any of its evils. Adults, who should know better, are to blame.
@drjohn:
Why do you care? let me guess, I’m a terrible parent if I don’t subscribe to your brand of race-based fear? Let me explain something to you. We don’t need to know who is white or black, married or single, who has a gay uncle or whose Aunt Myrtle was mugged. Just do your best to express your viewpoint without lying. That is least your readers should expect from you.
@Tom:
Why are you afraid to admit you have no kids?
@Greg
So you have no kids either
Correct. I have not contributed to the 7-billion-and-rapidly-growing global population. I suppose that means that all of the taxes I have paid have benefited the futures of others.
@drjohn:
It’s irrelevant. If I have kids does it change whether or not you can defend your premise? (Obviously not.)
Since you’re asking personal questions, why don’t you publish behind your full name?
@Tom:
It explains everything to me. You should asking yourself how I knew
@drjohn:
How I knew you were wrong? Lol.
No govt entity should support any private charity for any reason.
Corruption is almost guaranteed and said charity becomes a funnel for funds for one party or the other
Still spewing the bs that because govt doesn’t 100 percent fund pp that the 3% they get doesn’t fund abortions and then the logic word is reared again
Well logic indicates your argument is weak and only those desiring of being bs’d or continuing the govt benefit express would believe it
Same type of logic p p is using to justify that because they are a non profit they haven’t actually violated the law in selling body parts.
Liberals believe their smarter than everyone else when their arguments show them to be envious perennial children trapped in an adults body taking no responsibility but believing it is their right to make you responsible for them
@Greg:
Exactly. You’re are proving my point, although you are not smart enough to realize it.
There is no way that PP can specifically state that certain dollars are targeted to specific services. Look up the word fungible.
But it doesn’t matter. PP is a heinous organization that believes that a woman should have the right to abort a child right up to the minute of natural delivery. If it is in the birth canal, a woman should still be able to abort it.
That is sick. And you are one sick puppy for agreeing with them. You tried playing the “religion” card, but then, I showed you the error of that thinking.
Still waiting on your answer: have you ever personally witnessed an abortion, Greggie Goebbels?
@Matt, #95:
You seem to be confused. Freedom to choose places full responsibility directly on the person who makes the choice. To surrender choice is one way of avoiding a sense of personal responsibility.
@retire05, #96:
There is no such thing as “certain dollars.”
@Greg:
So which neighborhood are you shopping in for your ocean front property?
Freedom to choose does not place responsibility on said chooser
Do they then get to choose who of their neighbors subsidize their medical care or the cost of their abortions
Does that show they are accepting responsibility or passing the buck our way
How bout us paying for their birth control
Yep the responsibility of their choice is boundless
By the way they are not surrendering their choice, they have the choice to
Pay for their own birth control
Pay for the choice or consequences of having sex
Pay for the cost of killing their child
Choose to participate in the bad behavior which gets them into whatever trouble their actions got them in
That’s freedom of choice
Making their neighbors pay is not a choice it’s tyranny
But since liberals accept no responsibility they are ok with
Imposing their tyranny onto someone else enslaving them to give up a portion of their productivity to be sharecroppers for the entitled
@Greg:
Under US law, unfortunately, the slaughter of the separate human in the womb is ” legal”, just as it was once “legal” under US law to own slaves. Neither legality is the least bit moral.
What is even more heinous, is that those with valid moral compunction against this holocaust are forced via US taxpayer funding, to pay for the killing of the ultimate innocents.
@Pete: and Pete, you have to say this to someone that would gladly say that “all lives matter”.. even tho they clearly don’t believe it.
@Tom:
Allied with those who hate blacks? Perhaps you should speak with the black parents of the infant I spent the last 2 weeks trying to save, and whom I stayed with, prayed with, and cried together with when she just died.
In my 25 years in the army, I was privileged to work with amazing people of all races, and nobody was worried about the color of anyone’s skin, only the green of their uniform, and the red of the blood spilled in service to our country.
When I see accomplished men like Clarence Thomas, Allen West, Thomas Sowell, Herman Cain, and Dr. Ben Carson, or women like Condoleezza Rice, it is not the melanin content of their skin that makes them admirable, but their strength of character and the accomplishments of their lives. I do not have to agree with everything these folks believe, but I would hope you agree they are to be respected and admired for the thoughtfulness of their positions, and their contributions to our nation.
Opposition to Obama’s policies has nothing to do with his skin color, and everything to do with his ideology. If it were not so, then how do you explain the very same opposition to Hillary, Reid, and Pelosi, who espouse the same ideology as Obama?
I came from a lower middle class family. My parents divorced. There was no money for me to go to college, and I had no athletic ability to earn scholarships. I am not sure how enlisting as an infantry private, then working for an ROTC scholarship, and serving as a cavalry officer before going to medical school paid for by serving for years as an army doctor equates to “white privilege”. I also have no idea to what statements from Perry or Paul you are referring as a justification for your “white privilege” claims.
What I see, from a historical standpoint, is how democrat-enacted policies have engendered government dependency in far too many Americans of all skin colors. What I see, from watching my own children go through the public education system, is a distict dumbing down of educational requirements, and an alarming trend of pushing collectivist ideology as positive, while negatively portraying any sense of individualism. I see schools focused on teaching WHAT to think, rather than HOW to think. I see a condemnation of the ideals that made the US the greatest nation on earth, replaced with a narrow-minded, ideologically warped characterization seemingly designed to divide and balkanize our nation to foment fighting along racial lines.
This is certainly not the path that MLK, flawed as he was (and who among us isn’t), supported in his “I Have A Dream” speech. Does racism exist? Certainly, as demonstrated by the vicious, evil thug, Dylan Roof. But the idea that someone is successful because of “white privilege” is, as I said before, just as racist as saying that a black person is only successful because of affirmative action.
One should treat others with dignity based on their HUMANITY and their behavior, not the color of their skin, which frankly is as stupid as harboring animosity towards someone based on their blood type, or their eye color.
Finally, classifying opposition to Obama’s harmful leftist policies as due to his skin color is a sign of intellectual weakness or dishonesty, given the same exact opposition to these same policies when perpetrated by white leftists. Or to look at it another way, how is it rational to claim that opposition to Obama’s policies is racist, but opposition to Justice Thomas’ rulings by the left is not?
Roe vs. Wade established a woman’s Constitutionally protected right to choose 42 years ago. How long does it take people to accept that?
@Greg:
SCOTUS also ruled in 1857 (Dred Scott) that escaped slaves had to be returned to their slave owners.
And in Plessy vs Ferguson, circa 1896, SCOTUS said that it was constitutional to keep blacks segregated from whites in separate schools.
Using your leftist logic, once SCOTUS declares something, citizens should just shut up and except the ruling, regardless of the moral implications, right?
@Pete:So many statements that are so true. The ‘dumbing down’ of children in public schools is one of the aims of the socialists. They want to actively promote dependence on the government so that they can control them. The unfortunate thing is that people elect people to serve in Congress, then those elected people immediately forget what they were elected to do and set about serving themselves.
@Redteam:
I grew very alarmed with regard to my children’s education when I discovered they were not using textbooks for the majority of their classes, but were given short lessons on a couple of sheets of paper that generally amounted to 5 minutes of useless busy work, but did not allow the concepts to take hold. I became very actively involved in making sure my kids learned historical truths when my high school aged son came home with the despicable Zinn’s “People’s History of the United States” assigned as his text for US History class.
Just as antebellum slave owners made it illegal to teach blacks to read, knowing that it is easier to control the ignorant uneducated than someone with a mind influenced by knowledge, the modern left prefers keeping the masses incapable of rational, critical thought but totally distracted by emotional ‘feelgoodism’. It is so much easier to feed the masses ridiculous propaganda when they have such desultory analytical capabilities. How else to get people to willingly hand over more and more of their freedoms, than to strangle cognition in favor of pathos at the earliest stage of mental development, thus making it easier to believe 2+2=5?
@Greg:
What, exactly, IS that Constitutional right, Greg?
Planned Parenthood could be up-front and above-board and up-front with the taxpayer dollars utilized in their enterprise by having separate clinics for the abortion mills and for other services. But, they don’t do that. And, as you yourself show, sorting out tax dollars to go to this specific purpose or that is impossible, so how is it possible for Planned Parenthood to assure that, all under one roof, sharing the same electricity, gas and telephone, NO tax dollars make their way into the abortions operations? It isn’t. Tax dollars are used to fund abortions (while Planned Parenthood makes millions in profits) in violation of the law.
@Bill:
Good points, Bill.
1/4 of PP’s income is US tax dollars.
What I find egregious is that women might come in a few days after they’ve missed their 1st period, sure they are pregnant and wanting an abortion.
These women might be at three, four or maybe five weeks when they come to PP for their procedure.
At that point a D&C could do the trick but no viable body parts would be developed yet.
So, PP uses every ploy to keep the woman hanging until she reaches that 17 week mark where the parts are most useful for sale.
17 weeks is 4 and 1/4 months!
PP stalls these mothers for months just so they can make a sale afterward.
And they are doing it on our dime since all their money is fungible.
@Greg: Does that equate to the right of PP to sell unborn baby parts for profit??
@Pete:
Pete, you need to become involved in what text books, learning materials and “extra” learning materials are being used in your local public schools. Texas has a list of history books approved by the SBOE and Zinn’s book is not one of them. So, let’s say you are in Texas and you find a local high school is using an unapproved text book in Social Studies, here is what you can do:
you can take it before your locally elected school board and insist that they immediately remove the SBOE unapproved book and instruct the teacher that no material from that book can be used. If the school board refuses, you can file a complaint with the SBOE, who are also elected. You have great influence when it comes to ISDs that use non-approved text books.
Where you don’t have influence, and where the SBOE has failed, is in the area of “extra” learning material that is chosen by teachers. SBOE rules require that all extra learning materials are to be approved by the local school board, but many times the local school board fails in that duty and materials, that most parents would find objective, slip by unnoticed.
Prior to the start of any semester, you, as a parent, and taxpayer, has the right to request ALL learning material that will be used in your child’s upcoming class. If you object to the learning material, i.e. Zinn’s text book, the school district is required to provide your child with an alternative that you are allowed to review PRIOR to the alternative being given to your child. You can also request that your child not be present during the time when the objectionable text book is being used, nor be tested on the material from that text book.
Another thing; you, and other parents, can form a committee that examines all text books to be used in the class room prior to the school district making that purchase. Since those text books are approved by the school board, they have a list of proposed purchases. Get the book first. If it is objectionable, demand the purchase not be made.
Get a list from the Tx SBOE of all text books that are approved by the SBOE. You have a SBOE representative that was elected for your district. Work with them.
I protested the use of “extra” learning material that was used in a high school freshman class for Geography. The book contained written pornography (and the voyeurism of an 8 year old) and I went through all 3 Grievance Levels. In the end, the school board voted to keep the material in the class. Now parents know not to allow their child to take that class. So many kids were pulled out of the class that it has now been discontinued.
Social Studies seems to be the worst offender. Many of the teachers in Texas have come from liberal universities and they are passing that liberalism on to their students. But you have rights as a parent to object to any material used in a class room by a) having that material removed or b) insisting that your child be placed in another class that doesn’t use that material.
Also, and especially when it comes to Social Studies, request a syllabus PRIOR to the beginning of the semester. Some teachers will try to drag their feet telling you they don’t have one yet, but they are required to provide a syllabus to the principal, to be turned over to the ISD superintendent, prior to the start of school. Anything on that syllabus you object to (like the use of Zinn’s book) you can exempt your child from.
Of course, all of this applies only if you have a child in a Texas public school.
@Bill, #107:
I would have thought you would have looked into that.
The relevant statement can be found in the 14th Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
It follows that a state cannot dictate that a woman will continue an unwanted pregnancy and give birth. It’s her body, her most personal business, and her private decision. The state may not deprive a woman of sovereign control over her own body.
@Greg:
While that is pretty loose and broad to apply to human life (regardless of when you define it beginning), but it would pretty definitely apply to someone that simply chooses not to serve someone else, FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY MIGHT CHOOSE. Right?
No law can abridge the privilege to decide who to bake a cake for or for what event and would not affect any immunities from prosecution for any such refusal.
Or, does this only cut one way?
The cake didn’t matter. What mattered was the precedent that it could set, and what could follow if it had gone unchallenged. It could get us back to “WHITE ONLY” signs in places of business. A business owner can deny service to individuals. A business owner can’t deny service to individuals as representatives of groups based soley on race, color, creed, or sexual orientation. That was what the business owners in question clearly stated they were doing.
A state that makes a law designed to justify such group discrimination will likely have a problem with the same part of the 14th Amendment.
@Greg: Yet, if a person has a religious objection to providing a service to a particular event, do they not get the same rights accorded as someone that has a religious (or any other, actually) objection to serving, even in a non-lethal capacity, in the military?
There is no such law… ANYWHERE. Yet, currently, the LGBT crowd harasses, threatens, sues and ruins those who have such objections. It would appear, in some cases (as they suit you) you agree with their view.
@Greg:
That idea has home only in that vast void that resides between your ears.
So you envision thousands of businesses with signs in their windows that say “Heterosexuals Only.” I would be interested in your concept on how a business owner would know someone is gay? Obviously you think that they can be identified on sight. So tell us, what does a gay person look like?
A business owner has a right to refuse to participate in any activity they think violates their religious beliefs. Having to bake a cake that would require delivery and set up, is demanding that the bakers participate in that event.
What the baker should have done was say “Well, we’ll bake a cake that looks like a wedding cake, but we won’t deliver it, we won’t set it up and we won’t put two women on top of it and you will be billed for a tiered layer cake.”
The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa have a right to their religious beliefs as guaranteed by the First Amendment. There is no guaranteed right in the Constitution to be gay or to demand the services of others.
If your religious beliefs turn you into a bigot, perhaps you should more closely examine your religious beliefs. Jesus had no problem sitting down to eat with the guests at Levi’s banquet.
@Greg:
If you think that one group has the right to violate the First Amendment rights of another group, then you need to find a government more to your liking; perhaps North Korea or Russia.
He ate with them in a social setting, he wasn’t forced to cater the meal and he didn’t sleep with them.
“I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
Jesus considered them sinners.
Odd that you, a leftist, would want to drag Jesus into the debate since the crowd at the last DNC convention wanted all references to God removed from their platform.
Still waiting for you to tell me how a business owner would know a customer was gay. Surely, you have an answer for that, or are your running away from your own words again?
Yes, you’re an idiot.
Jesus would probably run present-day republicans out of the temple.
Interesting point in light of the facts, Greg.
A Democrat convention shouts down TWO Democrats seeking the nomination for President of the USA.
And for what?
For saying ALL lives matter.
Only black lives seem to be important to O’Malley’s and Sanders’ so-called constituents.
And, lest we forget, Hillary said the exact same thing in an AMC Church not more than one month ago.
Have all three apologized for their lack of racism? Have all three apologized for their crime of being whites?
In a ”Pride” event non-gay cross dressers and ”trannys” are being banned because their non-gay status offends the gay cross dressers and “trannys”
Whose inclusive now?
OTOH, when conservatives include gays, blacks, Hispanics, women, and all the rest what does the Left do? It attacks those people as ”self-hating.”
Liberals are the most racist and hateful of any of the ideologies in America today.
Yep
Liberals use the race/wealth card every chance they get because that’s the way their minds work and how they justify creating unequal treatment of our citizens IE
Taxes are paid unequally with one group paying the brunt and the low end actually getting more than they pay into them
Where women get preferential court treatment w free legal follow ups on divorce child support… But men if the woman refuses visitation has to hire his own attorney
Just to name a few
If you really don’t believe that listen to any liberal political speech and when they say right wing/conservative/tea party or wealthy just substitute Jew and then see who they sound like
That says it all
@retire05:
I apologize for not being more clear. I discovered the use of the Zinn garbage history book when I was stationed in Washington. I insisted my son be allowed to use “A Patriot’s History of the US” instead, and surprisingly, the high school teacher allowed it. I have not, thankfully, had any other children given Zinn’s class warfare propaganda trash for their history classes, especially not since moving back home to Texas.
@Greg:
So she can pay for her own private decision with her own money, rather than coercing payment via tax dollars from those whose 1st Amendment protected religious beliefs consider abortion to be murder.
@Greg:
So you think Jesus would be on the side that supports the killing of babies in their mother’s womb, the forced redistribution of wealth and the normalization of sodomy?
You are delusional.
@Pete:
Parents in Texas, more than any other state I think, stay on top of the materials used in the class rooms. Every now and then some rogue teacher goes off and does something stupid, but then that teacher’s job is short lived.
I am currently working with a member of the SBOE, and a State Rep, to pass legislation requiring all parents be sent syllabuses at least two weeks before school starts. This is an easy thing to do; the teacher presents the syllabus to the Superintendent’s office and the staff send them out to the parents. Yeah, it will make them work (school district staffer jobs are notoriously low work load) but that is what they are paid for.
Our own school district claims it doesn’t utilize Common Core (not allowed in Texas public schools) but the ISD web site links to the Khan Academy which is joined at the hip with Common Core. Bill Gates, who supports Common Core, gives lots and lots of money to the Khan Academy.
Frankly, if my kids were school age, I would home school now.
It’s interesting that you think Jesus would take a side. My imperfect understanding is that it’s the place of human beings to either hear what he’s saying or not.
@Greg:
You show how little you really know. Christ took many sides. But one of them was NOT supporting providing for the poor by removing the wealth of others at the point of a Roman sword (i.e. the redistribution of wealth)
.
Which means what? More psychobabble on your part?
What do you know of Jesus’ standards?
When he saw a group of men about to stone a woman to death for adultery he stood up against her would-be executioners.
Do you really think he’s stand still for people murdering babies still in their mothers’ wombs?
What crime had they committed?
No crime at all.
@retire05:
good points Retire05.
Jesus poured out Holy Spirit on Paul, anointing him to become the 12th Apostle.
Paul wrote to the congregation at Thessalonica this:
The context?
@Greg: What about the right to the life of the baby? Can a state make a law saying it’s ok to kill your babies if you don’t want them? What age does that start?
@Nanny G:
Whoa….. you mean only black lives that are over 9 months old. Those with harvestable body parts only matter for profit….
@Nanny G, #128:
I think the context is Paul admonishing the first members of the church in Thessalonia not to mooch off the community that they’re attempting to spread the message to. It’s not a proclamation that the poor should not be fed unless they work to earn their meal.
@Greg: It was/is an admonition for ALL Christians not to expect to be able to mooch off of anyone and be accepted in their congregations.
It is really sad when people claim to be Christians then ignore what their own Apostles told them.
The only widows who were to be given charity (according to the Apostles) were older, with no family and incapable of making on their own, especially to be NOT given charity (by the congregation) were younger widows who could make it on their own and/or re-marry.
@Greg:
No you don’t. You emote. You are just like any other far left progressive. You have no use for religion unless you can twist it to suit your own agenda.
You noticed, I’m sure, that Scriptures talk about idleness. How long do you think people would remain idle if their welfare was cut off? If they had to really starve and not just leech off productive citizens? Studies have proven that people find work once they run out of unemployment benefits. Any job is better than no job. Any money coming in is better than no money.
@retire05, #133:
You’re very quick to condemn others for living off the efforts of others. What happened to Judge not, lest ye be judged? You complain vehemently about the poor being subsidized. I wonder how long you would remain idle if your Social Security were cut? That would be the height of injustice. What about people who live off their investments? They’re living off the work of others. Money doesn’t “work for you.” Money doesn’t actually work at all. What about Christ’s admonishment about how difficult it is for the rich to enter heaven? How does that square with the worship of money?
I find few things more distasteful that some self-righteous prig pronouncing judgement on others.
Here Greg goes again
Social Security yep we all have the option to opt out right, nope we all mandatorily have to contribute and since when you retire it’s a fixed income then every time some president starts printing money it devalues the dollar making everything more expensive
See anyone on the left complaining about how their stealing the value of retirees incomes?
You gonna be the first Greg?
Investments are risk capital which means that money you have worked for is being risked not some fictitious fairy money
And as far as living off the fruits of others labor remember it was the investment which created their job in the first place
Money doesn’t work for you?
Money doesn’t work at all?
WTF does that mean
Judge lest ye be judged another BS comparison
Judging doesn’t come into more like getting the monkey off the taxpayers back
Everyone knows if you pay someone to sit on their butt they will continue to sit on their butt
That’s why statistically people start to look for work two weeks before their unemployment runs out
That’s not judgement that’s reality
Also your referring to a Muslim phrase not a parable by Jesus when referring to your rich comment
If you look historically at rich people they generally make huge legacy contributions to charities causes and institutions they deem worthy before and after their deaths
What the left can’t stand is that they can’t buy votes with that money
Your the self righteous one Gregor taking offense at the reality you don’t want to acknowledge as you vilify the productive people and ennoble those that make bad life decisions as you judge those that have been successful as being evil or greedy
The biggest greed I see that causes more grief is political greed
@Matt: Greg is a hopeless liberal. He thinks the government ‘gives’ people Social Security. I fully paid for every cent I get from SS. I paid the maximum every year from 1954 thru 2002. Had that money been invested at a normal rate, I would never run out of a return on investment. But libs think the government ‘gives’ me that. But I think most rich libs take full advantage of all tax breaks, same as Repubs.
Of course they take the tax breaks
Nobody said they were stupid
Liberals just assume their constituents are
@Greg: if someone is “idle” and living off of taxpayer funded subsistence, that’s sort or a reality; not a judgement.
@Greg:
Obviously, your comprehension of Biblical doctrine is weak and uninformed. To use your “judge not, lest ye be judged” would prevent anyone from sitting on a jury that most certainly requires one to judge another..
Scriptures tell us not to be idle. Being idle (lazy) goes against Christ’s teachings. Yet you have no problem contributing to the idleness of others (with other people’s money, of course) which is no different than driving the get-away car for a bank robber. Contributing to the laziness of others is the same as contributing to any other thing they do that is not acceptable. If it is wrong to facilitate a person’s ability to steal, why is it not wrong to facilitate a person’s ability to be lazy?
You, once again, and as you have before, compare Social Security, a system that a worker is required to pay into for future use, to welfare where the recipient does not pay into that system. Apples and oranges that you cannot seem to understand.
If my Social Security was cut tomorrow, so what? It would only mean that once again, the federal government confiscated my earnings. Because, stupid Greggie, I paid for that Social Security. And will have to live a long, long time before I ever break even.
Wrong. Because to be able to invest money into any business or endeavor, you first have to earn it. It is then taxed when you earn it. I.e. I give you my already taxed earnings to invest (buy into) a business you are starting. I am letting you use my money and you have to pay it back, with interest. As long as I continue to let you use my money (in the form of shares of your business) hopefully you continue to pay the interest on my lending you that money (the dividends you will pay me). You are totally clueless about anything having to do with Economics.
Money is nothing more than a tool. Just like a chain saw is a tool. You cannot have firewood if you don’t use a tool to obtain it. Not unless you are a beaver, then you don’t need firewood. Money works for a person just like a chain saw works for a person. You are trying to personalize an inanimate object.
Difficult, not impossible. There is a difference that liberals like you cannot comprehend.
You’re an idiot.
@retire05, #139:
The duty a jury member performs is not the sort of judging that was being spoken of. What is being cautioned against is presuming to judge another human being as God would judge.
You should think about this. You seem to focus on passing judgement concerning the value or worthiness of others far more than considering the meaning of what they’re saying.
@retire05: I can not understand why liberals think Social Security/Medicare is ‘welfare’. I guess it is just inbred into their genes. (another one of those gene deficiencies that libs like to blame for all kinds of things.)
Do you understand that the Social Security benefit computation involves a weighted formula intended to provide a greater degree of income security to lower-income workers?
So again if someone decides to piss his check away drinking beer and donating to liberals all of us who saved or worked extra hours have to pay more money so they can have a better existence but, we get to have a worse one
Sounds again like the productive end up being sharecroppers for the boss govt and their legion of entitled
I can see how Donald Trump remains in the spotlight.
Donald’s a liberal it’s what they crave
The limeligjt
@Greg: What? are you implying that some people are on welfare, that they are being supported by taxpayers? Perish the thought.
@Greg:
Really? And that little caveat about not being applicable when called on to judge the criminality of another person’s actions can be found where in Scriptures?
You want to rephrase that since what you said (above) makes no sense. Who is saying what? Are you saying that you cannot determine worthiness in what a person says or are you saying that pool people say things that do not determine their worthiness? Clear, concise English is your friend.
No one has the right to the labor of others. I do not have the right to demand you labor for me to benefit me and be a detriment you. You hold the Marxist view that income should be redistributed equally, no matter the amount of labor.
What kind of soap do you use to remove the slime you exude?
@Matt:
Marxism in full view.
Hey Greg though you would deny it why don’t you list the differences between a liberal and a Marxist
Be specific and remember us conservatives have actually looked into what Marx wrote
So c’mon Greg let’s hear your insightfullness in demonstrating your not a communist
@retire05, #147:
If it were about that sort of judging, no one could sit on a jury and reach a conclusion without disregarding the admonition.
A jury isn’t supposed to pass judgement on a person. A jury is supposed to evaluate the evidence and decide whether it supports the conclusion that a person is guilty of violating the law in question. Good people can be guilty. Bad people can be innocent.
We can’t even agree on politics. Arguing about theology is totally pointless.
Greg just described the process whereby someone is judged by their peers and then denies its judgement
Still waiting on that Marxist comparison
Considering your last it ought to be hilarious
“The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life. That’s going to be very, very powerful. That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it’s never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They’re going to go down with that database and the concerns of those people because they can’t get around it. And he’s [President Obama] been very smart. It’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place.” – REP. MAXINE WATERS (D-CA)
@Matt, #151:
The job of a jury is to determine whether the evidence and arguments presented during the trial support a finding that the defendant broke the law. Based on their conclusion, or verdict, a judgement on the defendant is made by the judge. What that person is called pretty much explains what that person does.
@Greg: That’s not correct Greg.
Are you saying that if the jury concludes he is ‘not guilty’ that the judge can still impose a sentence on him? I think not. Also, if defendant is guilty, the judge can’t find a ‘not guilty’ verdict. He can set aside the sentence and free him, but that’s not a ‘judgement’ it’s just a sentence. Now I can see why liberals don’t believe in ‘laws’.
Well Greg heres definition,
Gonna parse words with the dictionary now?
judg·ment
ˈjəjmənt/Submit
noun
noun: judgement
1.
the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.
“an error of judgment”
synonyms: discernment, acumen, shrewdness, astuteness, sense, common sense, perception, perspicacity, percipience, acuity, discrimination, reckoning, wisdom, wit, judiciousness, prudence, canniness, sharpness, sharp-wittedness, powers of reasoning, reason, logic; More
an opinion or conclusion.
“they make subjective judgments about children’s skills”
synonyms: assessment, evaluation, appraisal; More
a decision of a court or judge.
“the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal”
synonyms: verdict, decision, adjudication, ruling, pronouncement, decree, finding; sentence
“a court judgment”
@Redteam, #154:
He or she most certainly can. While a judge cannot overrule a jury’s acquittal, he or she can throw out a jury’s guilty verdict.
@Greg: Do you think repeating what I said makes you look brilliant? I said:
and then you repeated that.
@Redteam:
Greggie Goebbels is just parsing words. He thinks if he says “judgement” using different words, it changes the meaning. He is like every other progressive. He thinks he is so much smarter than everyone else he can change the meaning of word by how he explains the meaning of the word.
You know, like it all depends on what the meaning of IS is.
You know he’s a clown. I know he’s a clown. The fact that he’s a clown is only a secret Greggie doesn’t know.
@retire05: Maybe he’s trying to make the word ‘clown’ mean something different. But he won’t, he’ll still be just a ‘clown’.
@Redteam, #157:
Apparently I need to repeat it again: While a judge cannot overrule a jury’s acquittal, he or she can throw out a jury’s guilty verdict. That would be the opposite of what you stated. And correct, rather than incorrect.
@Greg:
Stop trying to weasel out of the fact that juries make judgments on other people every day of the week.
You’re still an idiot.
@Redteam: 154, I guess I need to step you thru this one letter at a time. 1+1= 2
anyhow, in 154 I said:
That sentence says, in English, that if a jury says the defendent is not guilty then the judge can not impose a sentence on him. Then I said:
This says, in plain English, that if a jury finds the defendent guilty, then the judge can not judge him to be ‘not guilty’, but he can set aside the verdict and not impose a sentence.
I tried to make that simple enough for a first grader, but if you need help, let us know. I’m not confident at all that you can interpret this.
@Greg: @Greg:
Where you’re wrong is: he or she can not ‘throw out the guilty verdict. They can set it aside or give the defendent no sentence, but that’s not a judgment, that’s a sentence. The jury makes the judgment. Even if he does ‘throw it out’ they have still made a judgment. So whether the court accepts the judgment of the jury has nothing to do with whether they made a ‘judgment’ or not.
and 2+2=4
I think you two need to round up a third stooge to complete your act.
@Redteam, #163:
That’s not going to work either.
A judge CAN issue a judgement of acquittal, even after the jury has delivered a guilty verdict. An acquittal IS a finding that the defendant is not guilty. That’s precisely what “acquittal” means. It means “not guilty.”
@Greg:
No he can’t. He can direct a verdict of Not Guilty, but that’s not a judgment. Only a political move.
but he’s not judged by the judge to be ‘not guilty’, it’s only a direct verdict. The jury decides the judgement if one is made. the judge can direct a verdict, but not a judgment (of course we’re talking about jury trials) I assume you know that but with you it’s not safe to ‘assume’.
We already found you.
@Greg:this got duplicated somehow
What a judge can issue—even overruling a jury’s prior guilty verdict—is a judgement of acquittal. The word “judgement” is actually part of the proper legal term for such a ruling. It would normally follow a motion for a judgement of acquittal filed by the defense, which can be made at any time before the judge has made the formal judgement of the court.
Judges judge. Not juries. Juries reach verdicts.
@Greg: .
and you make stupid statements.
@retire05: Nice to see involvement with childs education lest you get a detroit education
Hm… I feel as though data collection is a good thing. You can’t change what you can’t measure. If we had no data on schools, credit, mortgages and so forth, how would we know what’s working and what’s not?
The Tea Party, NRA and sections of the GOP have their ideological trappings just like any political affiliate. What is troubling is their stonewalling of any kind of social progress, and a belief the America is better off like it has been, with a normative, conservative power structure.
Maybe there isn’t a war on white America. Maybe there has been a war on women, gays and people of color for so long that national culture finally starting to right the ship.
Let’s look at ONE stat alone. Look at every Presidential Election since 1776 until 2012. If you look at every ballot through that time that listed a presidential and vice presidential candidate with the opportunity to assume leadership of the country, how many times did a person of color have that opportunity? TWICE (2). Obama in 2008 and 2012. How many times did a woman have the chance? ONCE (1). Sarah Palin in 2008.
How many times has a white, cisgender, able-bodied, heterosexual male had the opportunity to assume leadership as the president or vice president?
324
324 : 2 : 1
You’re right, there must be a war on white America. Yep, that’s what it is… White America is totally right, and Obama has lost sight of history. Clearly white men in America are the only sane, capable people to lead. We should stop entertaining the idea that minorities and women have the right to do anything. Forget those centuries of oppression because none of that created a shift in power dynamics in the US that lasted for generations of folks? Forget income inequality and that women get paid 78% what men in the same position get paid. No no no no… Blacks and women just need to open their eyes and understand that they’re just not as smart and don’t work as hard.
And sure, us whites have always been able to determine the fate of whether someone gets a job, a home, into the right schools and so forth… but that’s how it should be. Blacks have never actually been able to alter the fate of white America because they have no power–and for good reason. They’re not that capable and they’re lazy, am I right?? Obama is racist, bottom line. Most black people are racist actually, I’ve found. Never mind that racisim=power+privilege, and therefore if blacks hold no privileged identities and no systemic or institutional power across a normative white mainstream society, then they by definition cannot be racist… NEVER MIND all of that… I’m just going to call them racist because I don’t understand how my white identity shapes the way I interact with and navigate through the world. I’m ignorant to the fact that I’m ignorant of my identity; aka I’m not self-aware and it makes me happy.
Great article!!! 🙂