Feb 142017

Jewish leaders I know for years have told me there has been an unholy alliance between the American Left and Islam. The American Left is now invoking the “Your a Racist” canard in defense of Islamic “Refugees” against all those with concern about it.

While Christians are targeted repeatedly by the left and in particular homosexual activists, the left is silent about the first amendment rights of Christians. Yet – the left are rioting over a temporary travel ban from 7 specific nations with an extreme risk of terrorist activity. The ACLU raised $24 million to attack Donald Trump’s initiatives to stem the tide of Radical Islamic Terror coming in to America at the behest of their fellow Muslim Barack Obama.

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled on August 22, 2013 against Jonathan and Elaine. One of the justices said that the Huguenins are “now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives,” and he declared that this compulsion “is the price of citizenship.”

This is the case of the New Mexico Photographers.

Remember the bakers in Oregon? The state of ORegon bankrupted them, because once again the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal. The New Mexico Photographers seem to have not gotten fined. The Bakers in Oregon ended up getting $145,000 stolen from them and the militant activist liberal lost his bid to become Secretary of State in Oregon. Apparently, even Oregon could not stomach his brand of liberalism. Heck, the Portland Police are now arresting left-wing protestors! (and, for good measure just picked up two looters that were rioting after the election)

As labor commissioner, Avakian was best known for taking on Sweet Cakes by Melissa, a Gresham bakery that refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple. Avakian hit the company with a $135,000 penalty.

In Colorado, enter another “Human Rights Commission”. This time, what they did to a baker was right out of Josef Stalin or Mao Tse Tung’s Playbook:

Even after explaining to the commission that it wasn’t the people Jack objected to, it was the message the cake would send about marriage, an administrative law judge ruled against Jack in December 2013, saying that designing and creating cakes for same-sex wedding ceremonies are not speech protected by the First Amendment. The commission also ordered Jack and his staff to create cakes for same-sex wedding celebrations, go through a “re-education” program, implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years to show that Jack has completely eliminated his religious beliefs form his business.

Click here to read about the florist in Washington that got fined. How about 6 months in Jail and a $2500 fine for each day you refuse to do a Gay Wedding? This is in Phoenix, Az. How about ordering a Christian Shirt Maker to do shirts for a Gay-Lesbian Rally? Yes, this time in Lexington Kentucky.

This is why the media and the left are freaked out about Donald Trump’s initiatives on religious freedom. They will decimate their agenda of forcing normalization of homosexuality and making homosexuals superior to Christians. Divide and Conquer, the left’s #1 tactic for relevance. But – the left isn’t even consistent.

Imagine if a Court or a Human Rights Commission did this to a Muslim? Hint, they didn’t.

When some right-leaning journalists went undercover in the heavily Muslim areas of Michigan and found several Muslim-Owned Bakeries and Florists who refused to serve a Gay Wedding, did the ACLU Sue? Did the Left Protest? nope.

The Left has thrown in with Islam. This is an insanely stupid decision politically, but should put in raised relief what their priorities for society are.

In the second installment of this post, I am going to talk about the brutal reality of Muslim Immigration and what it means. Suffice to say, as per usual, the democrats are calling anyone that does not want to be put at risk by unvetted mass muslim migration a racist. I suppose this same brilliant logic is what they use to justify ordering Christians to violate their faith behind unaccountable cowards in robes known as judges. (or “Human Rights” commissions)

To Be Continued

Interesting News Roundup 3/19/2015

 Abortion, EPA, Gay Marriage, Obamacare  Comments Off on Interesting News Roundup 3/19/2015
Mar 192015

In an effort to deliver some extra content beyond lighting candidates on fire – enjoy periodic posts of stories that got my attention!

With an eye on 2016, congressional Republicans are adopting a new strategy on repealing ObamaCare.

For years, the effort to kill President Obama’s signature healthcare law has stalled in the GOP-led House. Now, Republicans have a new goal: getting a bill to his desk.
Congressional Republicans plan to pass a deficit-reduction package that repeals the Affordable Care Act (ACA). After a shaky start this year, GOP leaders want to show they can govern and set the terms for 2016, when they will try to retain control of Congress and retake the White House.
Even though the ObamaCare repeal bill will not become law this Congress, Republicans believe they will benefit politically if they can force Obama into a veto. They claim that would send the message to voters that Republicans just need the White House in order to shake up Washington.
The decision to target the ACA through a budget measure is clearly a nod to the right, as well as an effective way to round up votes for the GOP blueprint this spring.

The Out of Control EPA wants to monitor how long you spend in the shower!

The agency is spending $15,000 to create a wireless system that will track how much water a hotel guest uses to get them to “modify their behavior.”

Democrats Attempt to Kill Human Trafficking Bill Over Abotion Language.

Senate liberals don’t want to help victims — they want to create more! That’s the takeaway from yesterday’s cloture vote on Sen. John Cornyn’s (R-Texas) bill to limit human sex trafficking. The bill, which is a political no-brainer for both parties, came to a screeching halt last week, when Democrats feigned surprise that the legislation included a ban on taxpayer-funded abortion — standard operating procedure for any spending measure.

Religious Persecution in the Name of Equality Update: NJ Teacher Fired for Supporting Natural Marriage.

Like Dr. Ben Carson (and science!), Patricia believes homosexual behavior is a choice. So when the popular Republican came under fire for saying as much, Jannuzzi backed him up in a post. “They (advocates of same-sex marriage),” she wrote, “want to reengineer western civ into a slow extinction. We need healthy families with a mother and a father for the sake of the children and humanity!” Furious that Dan Savage lived up to his name with another disgusting tweet, Patricia shared an article about his rant (so vile we can’t repeat it) against Carson.


CRA Blasts Marin GOP for Picking a Fight

 Gay Marriage  Comments Off on CRA Blasts Marin GOP for Picking a Fight
Aug 022013

President’s Message

Long time officers in the CRA told me that they were astounded at the unity of purpose displayed in the campaign of Andy Vidak for State Senate.

Members of over 20 CRA units participated in this historic victory for the California GOP, and for a rare time in California Republican Party history, liberal, moderate, libertarian and conservative Republican alike unified for a common cause.

Yet, the Marin County Republican Party chose this time to make history of their own. They adopted a resolution supporting same-sex marriage and touted themselves as the first central committee in the US to support same-sex marriage.

Did their desire for headlines outweigh any consideration of the consequences?

We in the CRA are wondering if the Marin County Republican Party tested this action on the voters of the 16th Senate District? Would any of the roughly 60% Latino voters in this district have been less likely or more likely to support Andy Vidak if he supported gay marriage? Would the African-American voter concentrations in southern Fresno County and western Bakersfield have come in to the GOP fold as a result of this ground-breaking action?

The polling data is clear that this issue is a loser in both of those demographics, even more so in the Central Valley of California.

So-called moderate Republican groups constantly lecture CRA and other conservatives about “Divisive Social Issues” and that the path to victory for the California Republican Party is won by focusing on fiscal issues. Further, some say that the Government should “stay out of the marriage business”.

The Marin GOP’s actions means that these arguments are either false or arguments they don’t believe themselves, or both.

The issue is one of unity. Whenever you “break new ground” in this manner you send two messages, one to the group you’re attempting to pander to and another to the existing groups within your sphere of influence. The small number of Republicans comprising the Marin GOP have chosen to drive a wedge between themselves and the Conservative base of the GOP.

With statewide GOP registration at 28%, we are questioning the wisdom of such a move.

Judge Deciding Prop 8 Case is Gay

 Andy Pugno, Gay Marriage, Proposition 8, Yes on 8  Comments Off on Judge Deciding Prop 8 Case is Gay
Feb 072010

I don’t know if this is a case of the SF Chron outing the guy or if it is a case of re-stating one of those things below the surface that has been there for years.

Everyone I know describes Vaughn Walker as a Country Club Republican and the behavior of Walker during the trial indicates that the fix is in.

Quoting the article – in particular, the end with Andy Pugno’s comments:

If the judge decides that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, supporters of the measure are sure to take it to the federal appeals court and the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary. Kendell expects that if that happens, the measure’s proponents will make an issue of the judge’s sexual orientation – at least in the public arena.

Not so, said Andy Pugno, general counsel for the group that sponsored the Prop. 8 campaign.

“We are not going to say anything about that,” Pugno said.

He was quick to assert, however, that Prop. 8 backers haven’t gotten a fair shake from Walker in court. He cited both the judge’s order for the campaign to turn over thousands of pages of internal memos to the other side and Walker’s decision to allow the trial to be broadcast – both of which were overturned by higher courts.

“In many ways, the sponsors of Prop. 8 have been put at significant disadvantage throughout the case,” Pugno said. “Regardless of the reason for it.”

Prediction – Prop 8 is going to the US Supreme Court.

Jan 282010

Nowhere in the MSM did you see coverage of homosexual activists saying in court, “if we can’t marry, then no one should.”

Nowhere in the MSM did you see coverage of the No on 8 lawyers calling voting Yes On 8 a hate crime.

Nowhere in the MSM did you see coverage of how the judge refused to issue  a reciprocating order compelling No on 8 to turn over their campaign documents the way Yes on 8 had to.

Nowhere in the MSM did you see anything close to a recitation of the legal facts – the most absurd of which is the claims that Homosexuals are a powerless minority. Hmmm, Harvey Milk Day? Our Assembly Speaker?

Again – the Prop 8 trial shows us why the American Media Establishment is a direct threat to our Republic and should be treated as propaganda and regulated under campaign finance law.

Quoting Andy Pugno: “But no matter how loud the pleas for sympathy become, there is simply no legal basis for the fantastical, unsupportable claim that the homosexual community in California is “politically powerless.” Does Equality California, California’s biggest gay lobby organization, think of itself as powerless? Does the Human Rights Campaign, which featured President Obama at their latest dinner, believe they are politically powerless? Are we to believe that these groups are politically powerless despite their ability to raise $43 million to oppose Prop 8, and to attract the support of the entire political establishment, Hollywood and the media? Not with a straight face we can’t.”

The bottom line – only Marriages produce Children. The fact that the voters had to be called on to remind the California Supreme Court of that fact is insane. The fact that the homosexual lobby has run to a liberal judge to usurp the will of 7 million voters and the above comments prove their agenda in their mind justifies tyranny, persecution and whatever other means in order to be advanced.

The Bottom line? – quoting Andy Pugno Again: “What may be lost in all the sensationalism of the past two and a half weeks of trial is that the burden of proof to invalidate Prop 8 lies squarely with the plaintiffs. They cannot win unless they prove that the voters were “irrational” when they chose to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in our state. Contrary to their public relations claims, the outcome of this case does not depend on whether the Prop 8 sponsors can prove that homosexual marriage will harm traditional marriage. The controlling legal issue is not whether homosexual marriage is good or bad, but rather whether the people have the right to decide what is best.  The plaintiffs simply did not carry that burden.

Meanwhile, we have shown that limiting marriage to its longstanding definition is rational because marriage benefits children, not just the adults. Whenever possible, it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father. And man-woman marriage is the only human relationship that can biologically serve that distinctive purpose.  A same-sex relationship can never offer a child both a mother and father. It’s that simple.

The plaintiffs put on a spectacular show-trial of irrelevant evidence, calling to the stand many “expert” witnesses to testify that allowing homosexual marriage would: help local governments raise more tax revenues, help gay and lesbian couples to accumulate greater wealth, and improve the self-esteem of homosexuals.  But those are political arguments for society to consider, not legal support for the claim that the US Constitution contains the right to homosexual marriage. The courtroom is simply not the proper forum for what is clearly a social, not a legal, appeal.

I predict that Judge Walker will legislate from his bench and cite the emotional arguments of the No on 8 side in his decision.

It wouldn’t surprise me to see my name on a list of bigots somewhere soon – remember, it’s all about tolerance, right? (forget what the voters think)