Double standard hernia

If they threw county clerk Kim Davis in jail in Kentucky, then why aren’t all the Obama administration officials in jail for not enforcing immigration law?

And where are all the people telling these officials that they cannot just refuse to follow the law? If they can put a county clerk in jail for that, how much more should they do to Federal Officials who will not enforce the law? So why aren’t officials in sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, in jail for failure to enforce immigration law?

But one clerk can be locked up for not issuing a marriage license. Advocates also decry officials in Texas for not issuing birth certificates to anchor babies. If the governments’ objective was to be inconsistent, and have double standards on law, which is also part of the fourteenth amendment, then it succeeded.

Obama arbitrarily and illegally rewrote immigration law, then had the audacity to complain when a judge ceased their actions.

US Citizenship and Immigration Services:

Update: Due to a federal court order, USCIS will not begin accepting requests for the expansion of DACA on February 18 as originally planned and has suspended implementation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents. The court’s temporary injunction, issued February 16, does not affect the existing DACA. Individuals may continue to come forward and request an initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA under the original guidelines. Please check back for updates. [emphasis mine]

Now they contend that they are being denied, via court order, the ability to enforce the illegal fiat law Obama created. The problems he claimed necessitate the law were caused by failures to enforce the law. Now they have the audacity to claim “the system is broken” and needs new law. Still a clerk gets jailed for a failure to comply with their “law” — which in reality was a Court decision. See where Obama has put this country?

Time for a change, or not

We’re well overdue for change. If we were in need of it before Obama, well, he doubled that need. This is a different kind of change proposed and for a different type of people it applies to. The type who normally frown on civil disobedience, not praise it in all situations.

Columnist to America’s Christians: It’s Time for Civil Disobedience

03 Jul 2015 By : WND
By Matt Barber

“Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.”

– John 15:20

The push back has begun. Christian business owners, lawyers, parents, judges, county clerks, organizations, universities, hospitals, adoption agencies and other individuals and groups have been given an ultimatum by five unelected, unaccountable liberals in Washington, D.C.: “You must now obey us and disobey God. You must pretend, with us, that sin-based same-sex ‘marriage’ is an actual thing.”

To which we say, “Not on your life.”

“Or our own.”

Many of us have long warned that this day would come, and it has arrived. In the Spirit of Daniel the prophet and MLK the reverend, we Christians must now engage, as relates our peaceful response to the imposition of counterfeit same-sex “marriage,” in widespread civil disobedience. It’s the right thing to do. In fact, it’s a sin if we don’t.

“So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” (James 4:17)

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/time-for-civil-disobedience-christians/

We’ll see about that push back or how far it goes? Time will tell. My guess is if Pope Francis spoke against same-sex marriage he would be promptly ignored, where he’s celebrated presently for his global warming stand. But what the media really wants to know is if the Pope chews on cocoa leaves in South America — not his view on same-sex marriage.

As to faithful Christians, the call is out. How do they or churches respond?

George Takei vs Clarence Thomas

Here is a real lesson in showmanship — a real bad one. And it comes from a professional actor mega-social activist, in other words a “Professional.”

George Takei: Clarence Thomas Is a ‘Clown in Blackface,’ Doesn’t Belong on Supreme Court

BY: Emma-Jo Morris | Washington Free Beacon |
July 2, 2015

Takei’s rage came in light of the Justice’s contrary stance on the recent equal marriage decision, where the Court ruled 5-4 that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. Thomas released a statement saying that the government does not grant human dignity, and as such cannot take it away. Thomas argued that human dignity is inherent, and that the Supreme Court cannot issue it.

Go to the video tape. Here’s a first class example of a Leftist activist

“He gets me that angry,” which is liberal code for justified in calling him that. And he’ll get plenty of applause from his gay community comrades.

Then says: “This man does not belong on the Supreme Court. He is an embarrassment. He is a disgrace to America. I’ll say it on camera.” Proud and loud…exhibit “A”.

The problem in his case is that Thomas’s dissent was a minority opinion. Try that 3-cushion bank shot from the right and watch what happens.

I’m reminded of the dignity the court awarded abolished from the 55 million and counting aborted babies since Roe.

According to his bio script: “George Takei is an actor, social justice activist, and social media mega-power.”

Hillary shows her colors

Hillary finds her inner rainbow. Twitter feed. “Loud and Proud”

Hill Twit

A “History” theme, by a candidate who is running on her record while running from her records. History? Like using a private server or emails for gov business.

Hillary before (circa 2004):

“I believe marriage is…a sacred bond between a man and a woman….a fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and woman, going back into the midst of history, as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization. And that it’s primary principle role during those milennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.”

Say anything, do anything, be anything……. and forget everything.

Supreme decision marks the territory

The Supreme Court Ratifies a New Civic Religion That Is Incompatible with Christianity

by David French June 26, 2015 | National Review Online

The most striking aspect of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which created a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, was its deep emotion. This was no mere legal opinion. Indeed, the law and Constitution had little to do with it. (To Justice Kennedy, the most persuasive legal precedents were his own prior opinions protecting gay rights.) This was a statement of belief, written with the passion of a preacher, meant to inspire.
Consider the already much-quoted closing:
” As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
[…/]/
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420376/marriage-christians-religion-love?

Love substitutes for logic and the Constitution. They needed a trump card and they found one with love. Love is also kind, and you don’t see much of that from the LGBT lobby. But then what does love have to do with a lawsuit? When emotion is the basis for decisions, then how much further do we have to go?

Well, it sounds a lot more like the Woodstock decision

    Right behind you, I see the millions
    On you, I see the glory
    From you, I get opinion
    From you, I get the story

Ode to the rainbow

I used to like rainbows, way back, and I really have nothing against them. But now I suppose there will be another new term soon, rainbowphobia. Note to Websters’.

As of yesterday with the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage, I saw the rainbow on everything, everywhere in support of that agenda. Of course it was already bad enough that the LGBT community had co-opted the rainbow years ago. Suddenly it was everywhere as if planned yesterday. Anywhere they could stick it.

These days I guess everything is about associations or symbolic interpretations. Triggering is the buzzword for something that inflames one. It’s about common perceptions, new and evolving meanings. It’s about the meaning of something at a given time.

Since they attach the symbol to anything related to same-sex or LGBT, they lay claim to areas that used to mean something else, just like the rainbow. Meanings of words change and society is suppose to adapt. But one thing I will sadly miss is the rainbow – or the non-sexualized, time honored rainbow. We’ll probably be called phobic over it.

So I thought in honor of that a few special mentions and helpful reminders would be appropriate.(all quotes in NIV)

Gen 9:12-16

And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

Ezek 1:25-28

Then there came a voice from above the expanse over their heads as they stood with lowered wings. 26 Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. 27 I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him.

Rev 4:3

And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow , resembling an emerald, encircled the throne.

Rev 10:1-2

Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven. He was robed in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun, and his legs were like fiery pillars. 2 He was holding a little scroll, which lay open in his hand.

Funny how the rainbow is now symbolic for gay issues or same-sex marriage. Normally, there are limits to symbols but there seems to be no limit to the ways they can use this one. I never understood the connection between this symbol and their cause.

They have reinterpreted the meaning of yet another time-honored historical thing. Or are we now somewhere over the rainbow? Perhaps we need a psychological term for their obsession with using the rainbow? The term could be rainbow-philia.

RightRing | Bullright

Passions flare in Finland

While rioting and protests take place here, and buildings burn, passions flare in the Lutheran church in Finland. Same sex marriage sets off a firestorm in the community.

Thousands quit Lutheran church in Finland after its Archbishop came out in favour of same-sex marriage

The Independent UK

Thousands of people have resigned from the Lutheran church in Finland after its Archbishop said he rejoiced “with my whole heart” following the government vote to legalise same-sex marriage.

According to Finland’s YLE, between the time that the vote went through on Friday and midnight on Saturday almost 7,800 people had resigned from the church using an online system that aims to ease people’s resignation.

Each person who resigns their membership also resigns their commitment to pay taxes to the church, which is the Lutheran church’s main source of income in Finland, YLE reports.

Comments left by people on the website suggest a sizable portion of the resignations were due to the comments made by the Archbishop of Finland, Kari Makinen.

Pink News reported Makinen as having said: “I know how much this day means for rainbow people, their loved ones and many others. I rejoice with my whole heart for them and with them.

“We are in the same situation as our neighbouring Nordic Churches: our concept of marriage needs a fundamental examination.

“Speaking for myself, I think it is time for reconsideration. It will take place from the standpoint of the church’s own principles.”

“I would like to warmly thank the proponents of the law, and all those who have taken part in the debates, regardless of position.”

More: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/thousands-quit-lutheran-church-in-finland-after-its-archbishop-came-out-in-favour-of-samesex-marriage-9896339.html

Holes in Olson’s case

Ted Olson goes to media in defense of SCOTUS and same-sex marriage. He may be the next Att. General, who knows?

He claimed this (SCOTUS dictate) is a prescribed Constitutional process. This is judicial supremacy. Where exactly is judicial supremacy spelled out in the Constitution?

Then he stood on the old claim this is a protection from majority rule. But where is that minority rule in the Constitution? We go to the ballot to elect our Representatives, and now Senators. What if you told them that the loser wins the election – minority rules? They have overturned the voice of the people in elections.

And Dems stood against the rights of the minority by killing the filibuster for presidential nominees in Congress. Remember Fili the Filibuster was their hero of Democrats under Bush. It was a necessary Constitutional protection, then.

What they have done and argued for is no boundaries on marriage. Morphed into whatever the individuals want it to be. So now any boundary they claim there is can be argued against in the same way. If someone wants to marry a child then what? You can say there should be age restrictions but why?

So we need an age of consent, that is a limitation/restriction to someone. For that matter why does it have to be human beings? Aren’t you, then, denying someone their relationship? The point is, of course, there has to be some limitations or boundaries on marriage. There are limitations on many other things. There sure seems to be a limitation on the will of the people.

RightRing | Bullright

Tradition bites the dust on campus

BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS

Marriage at Notre Dame: From sacrament to sacrilege

Diana West covers university’s rejection of traditionalist student group
WND

The National Catholic Register broke the most shocking cultural news of the week:

“A group of students at the University of Notre Dame has generated a campus-wide controversy by advocating that marriage between one woman and one man is better suited for children than same-sex ‘marriage.’”

Welcome to campus controversy 2014, where the subversives are traditionalists and, as we will see, the subversives control the establishment.

The Register continued:

“The group – known as Students for Child Oriented Policy (SCOP) – elicited negative letters to the campus newspaper and prompted hundreds of students to sign a petition calling upon the university not to recognize it as an official campus club.”

What comes next may not be surprising, but it remains gasp-worthy: Notre Dame refused to recognize the group favoring what we now know as “traditional marriage” as an official campus club. Why? The administration offered a thin excuse, saying the new club would duplicate the mission of two other campus groups that promote Catholic doctrine – one of which, it turns out, hasn’t updated its website since 2005. Meanwhile, according to SCOP’s prospective president, Tiernan Kane, his group doesn’t identify itself with a specifically Catholic mission, coming together instead as a non-sectarian effort to “focus on public policy as it relates to issues that specifically affect children.”

The Register reported that planned club activities would have included “presentations on Common Core and Indiana education policy, marijuana’s effect on young people’s brains, the United Kingdom’s anti-pornography policy and the problems associated with no-fault divorce.” The club’s position that traditional marriage is good policy is what drew campus fire.

Diana West’s latest book, “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character” reveals jaw-dropping stories of treason you’ve never heard

There’s a lot here, so let’s take it from the top. First, we have just learned that on the campus of one of the leading Catholic universities in the country, the concept of same-sex marriage isn’t just popular, it’s entrenched to the point where it is controversial to prefer the traditional model – even to argue that heterosexual marriage is better social policy for children. In fact, the belief that a child is better off with a mother and a father rather than two mothers or two fathers is so unpopular that 630 students signed their names on a petition to prevent it from being promoted by an official campus club. […/]

Read more: http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/marriage-at-notre-dame-from-sacrament-to-sacrilege/

As she eloquently points out, it is not so much that they disagree but the strength of disagreement to the point of silencing. And to do it in such unified lockstep that what once stood for principle is replaced by that which is driven by pure political correctness and ideology. Politics trumps tradition.

This was evident in the great Notre Dame protest in May, 2009. That’s when Notre Dame requested Obama come to speak, offering him a coveted honorary degree. Okay, but that was not their only offense. To understand Notre Dame’s heritage as a Catholic University is to understand the values consistent with that heritage. Chief among them is the issue of life which was foremost to many protestors. However, what happened in that process was what really outraged people, students and alumni.

It would be a given that protestors would come out against giving Obama such honorary status, as the most pro-abortion president that we’ve had. But the wrath of the University came down on the protestors. They tried to shut them down and had many protestors arrested and charged. Charges which pended long after the event.

Barack Obama did speak and received his doctorate. The university explained at the time that it was in the spirit of tolerance and diversity of opinion that it invited and honored him. Okay, but the intolerance and prosecution of protestors never dawned on them. See, they can use diversity and tolerance as convenient rationale, but then use outright silencing or banning techniques to suit political correctness.

CNN May, 2009

Addressing a sharply divided audience at the storied Catholic university, Obama conceded that no matter how much Americans “may want to fudge it … at some level the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.”

“Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction,” he said. “But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”

The commencement ceremony was boycotted by a number of graduates dismayed by the university’s decision both to tap Obama as its commencement speaker and to give him an honorary degree.

The president is a supporter of abortion rights and federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research — positions that are anathema to traditional Catholic teachings.

Note his words when he knew the controversy he created. He actually says views are irreconcilable but lectures (others presumably) not to reduce differing views to caricatures. Homophobes or “Bible thumpers” anyone? No, that is exactly what the left does patently when disagreeing with someone or a group who does not swallow their view. And they declare the “debate is over”. All following the same Alinsky tactics Obama practices.

Now we see in this episode those tactics in full display again, against the very traditions America was founded on. Have we moved that far from our social mores that we now repel anything related to our traditions? Those social mores cannot coexist with their agenda, in the Left’s world….and they aren’t meant to. The progressive Left is married to the political agenda, making their political correctness even worse, and renders all outside it obsolete.

So Obama’s words were just as disingenuous as ever. But it’s the Left who has reduced anything and everyone else to caricatures. Yet he is wrong again because on all levels the left is intolerant of views, not just on “some level”. But this is par for Obama to caution people against politicizing something while actively politicizing it himself.

RightRing | Bullright

Jump on the perverted bandwagon, or else

Okay read it and don’t weep. They see this as the paramount issue that ruins the GOP and loses elections. If you can stand it, take a gander at this.

The 1 issue that will ‘kill’ the GOP

‘Big problem is so severe that it can’t be fixed’ — WND

The founder [Jimmy LaSalvia] of the most prominent organization seeking to tie conservatism to the homosexual agenda announced this week he is leaving the Republican Party because it embraces Big Government and continues to tolerate “bigotry” within the party toward homosexuals, the latter of which he says will prevent the GOP from ever winning another national election.

“Over the past several years, I have come to the conclusion that the Republican Party just doesn’t represent my principles and values. I’m a limited government conservative, and they’re big-government people. They like government as long as they’re in charge of it. And I don’t tolerate bigotry of any kind, and they do. It’s that cultural problem, that they seem to be out of touch with life in America today that’s led me to the conclusion that the Republican Party will never again win a national election,” he said.

LaSalvia said the reason the debate over homosexuality will permanently scar the GOP is because the attitude of Republicans is off-putting to countless families, who will then tune out the party on other issues.

GOProud made news in November when co-founder Chris Barron publicly announced he was voting for Democrat Terry McAuliffe in the Virginia governor’s race because he found GOP nominee Ken Cuccinelli, a traditional social conservative, too extreme.

“The fact that Ken Cuccinelli was an acceptable candidate for Republicans astonished me. Let me be clear, it’s not about positions on issues. … It’s about what Ken Cuccinelli thinks about people who aren’t like him that made him an unacceptable candidate to me. And that’s why, ultimately, the voters in Virginia chose a crook for governor rather than someone like Ken Cuccinelli. And honestly, that’s why Barack Obama, a failed president, was re-elected in 2012 instead of a Republican.”

Problem is he wants people to vote just based on their sexuality. Endorsing a crook for governor in Virginia because Cuccinelli wasn’t tolerable to them says it all. They will endorse Marxists, Maoists or corrupt politicos because of their sexual ideology. Okay, good luck with that.

It gets worse. You must endorse their lockstep agenda, or you’re a bigot. He also has to do an attack on Cuccinelli, for being who he is.

I’ve about had it with this crap. For years I listened to them tell us we have to keep cultural issues off the table, and anyone who mentions them is a bigot — from life to social issues, to homo-marriage, any of that “social” stuff. This while the left runs on those issues — bringing them front and center. Be silent, they scolded us. That came from those in the GOP too, as well as the Left lecturing us all the time — especially on the Internet.

Now they tell us if you do not “proudly” wear some rainbow bandetta, and support their agenda, you are a bigot. Now they tell us they cannot tolerate us if we support traditional values. They tell us that their “values” – or lack thereof — are the only ones you can espouse, else you are a bigot. That we must proudly champion their perverted sexual agenda. And only that, in their view, is the ticket to winning elections.

RightRing | Bullright

O’Reilly’s No Thumping Zone

Front Cover

 
This should be Bill O’Reilly’s new tag line:

Caution: You are entering a “No Thumping Zone”.

Bill O’Reilly skews opponents of same-sex marriage, calling them Bible thumpers.

And when people take issue with him for his characterization, like Rush Limbaugh, he blows his top. Laura Ingraham was on the receiving end when he dug his heels in and repeatedly said his term was “accurate” and deserving.

She disagreed and he went bully on her. Apparently the spin did not stop for same-sex marriage. Then he lied when he said he gve her “a good two minutes” – little over 60 seconds– to counter his position, after he cut her off twice before that.

So the spin did not stop there.
 

Full interview

And Bill is the chief “Culture Warrior”?
Mark Levin responds to the remarks. (audio)

Front Cover

Obviously not Bill.