Monthly Archives:April 2015

 

Welcome to 2015 and the Obama admin has stated at the SCOTUS case now being heard about gay marriage that if the SCOTUS rules for gay marriage any institution that fails to comply might loose(let’s be honest it WILL change to WILL LOOSE) it’s NPO status.  Do you understand what this means for ALL CHURCHES????  It is time to relinquish your NPO status NOW if you don’t want the gov’t to tell you how you are going to operate.  The government is atheistic and doesn’t care about the Bible anymore than the muslims do.  BTW do not think this revocation will be applies equally.  There will be some other faith churches revoked but the vast majority will be Christian churches….namely the “protestant” ones.

Do not think this will keep you NPO’s safe forever though.  Once there’s a mass move away from the NPO status the government will just start taking harsher measures to bring the “non-compliant” to heel.  However while there is still time to act independent form government interference drop your NPO status now.

I said this a loooooong time ago at my now former church and i was dismissed and ridiculed for saying it is time for churches to give up their federal NPO status. WHY? Because if you are going to use a gov’t provided instrument to avoid paying taxes do not be surprised when the gov’t starts to interfere with your operations as you are effectively taking a gov’t subsidy. With gov’t subsidies come the gov’t being able to dictate how you are to act to continue to collect that subsidy. I made this blog post back in 2011 to this point when a bunch of pastors were going to “defy the IRS” and dare them to revoke their NPO status.  What stopped the IRS back then?  Nothing they could have and there’s nothing anyone could have done about it.

The Constitution forbids this!  I can hear this coming back to me.  Yes it does but what has the electorate told the government for the past 50 or more years?  It is not, “You exist at our consent and we DO NOT consent to these invasions of our rights!”.  no america that is not what you have been telling government at all levels.  What you avhe been saying is,”If you give us enough money, subsidies, welfare, freebies of any kind we will allow you to interfere with our basic rights and will not do anything when you violate the Constitution right in front of us.  We will not take action when you not only violate the Constitution but when you taunt us and tell us what you are going to do BEFORE you do it we might complain but will take no meaningful action.  We will elect those into power that give us these abuses over and over so we can keep getting our stream of freebies”.

There are some that have taken real measures like voting corrupt officials out…running for office themselves…getting other citizens involved and active…but sadly that number is waaaay to small.  Even our churches are apathetic when it comes to the rights abuses that are ongoing in this country.  I do not know if it is too late or not.  I DO know it is time for radical action on the part of our churches AND their congregations.  Yes this means the churches are going to have to raise much more money and that congregations are going to have to dig much deeper.  Where is thy faith?  Any church that takes this bold step of relinquishing their NPO status and doing so in a way where their congregation is informed AND is faithful in God’s provision might be really surprised at the results..:)

I am not sure but I have been following this story.  Considering the current SCOTUS rulings in favor of a horrid gov’t enabling emminent domain(they can take your land for ANY reason AND give it to a private business), and of course Obamacare.  I would not be surprised if the SCOTUS sides with the lgbt folks.  Karl Denninger thinks it might be:

I’ll make a prediction: The gay activists lost their own case in the US Supreme Court.

That’s right — they didn’t lose simply because they should have lost, they lost because their true agenda was exposed; their campaign of deception, of “inclusiveness”, was exposed at the Court and the Justices took notice of it.

They’re going to lose on that basis.

Among the points in support of this was a statement from the Justices that the applicants “are not trying to join the institution of marriage; they are trying to change what that institution is.”  

This is not only beyond the remit of the court it is beyond the remit of anyone just as you can’t change a man into a woman by cutting off his penis and crafting breasts and a vagina onto his body; you can make him look like a woman but he is still a man.

I suspect that was enough to doom the case, standing alone.  But it didn’t end there; the Obama Administration attorney, under questioning from the Justices, admitted that they are likely to revoke tax exemptions from colleges and other institutions if they do not “comply” with such a policy.  For example, a Catholic University would be forced to allow same-sex couples to cohabit in on-campus housing, never mind that a gay couple couldn’t get married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest in any event!

In other words such a couple would not attend because they’re Catholic and wish to live in a religious fashion under Catholic dogma as that’s impossible as a matter of Catholic Doctrine for said gay couple; their entire purpose in attending said school would be to destroy the institution by attacking its tax exemption.  Yet despite that obvious and blatant act of bad faith the government will stand with them and come after the institution, effectively allowing them to use the government’s monopoly on the use of force to assist them in an intentional act of destruction taken with malice aforethought rather than inclusiveness.

I don’t believe the Justices will allow that to happen.

But if they do then we the people of America must not allow the Justices and their demonstrated willingness to allow these malevolent, intentional acts of vandalism and worse to stand as valid.

For their part Christian ministers and others of conviction have already thrown down that gauntlet by stating that they will not comply.

The interaction between those two, should it come to it, ought to be well worth observing — from well beyond minimum safe distance.

 

Contrary to the emotional blackmail some leftists are attempting to peddle, Baltimore is not America’s problem or shame. That failed city is solely and completely a Democrat problem. Like many failed cities, Detroit comes to mind, and every city besieged recently by rioting, Democrats and their union pals have had carte blanche to inflict their ideas and policies on Baltimore since 1967, the last time there was a Republican Mayor.In 2012, after four years of his own failed policies, President Obama won a whopping 87.4% of the Baltimore City vote. Democrats run the city of Baltimore, the unions, the schools, and, yes, the police force. Since 1969, there have only been only been two Republican governors of the State of Maryland.Elijah Cummings has represented Baltimore in the U.S. Congress for more than thirty years. As I write this, despite his objectively disastrous reign, the Democrat-infested mainstream media is treating the Democrat like a local folk hero, not the obvious and glaring failure he really is.Every single member of the Baltimore city council is a Democrat.Liberalism and all the toxic government dependence and cronyism and union corruption and failed schools that comes along with it, has run amok in Baltimore for a half-century, and that is Baltimore’s problem. It is the free people of Baltimore who elect and then re-elect those who institute policies that have so spectacularly failed that once-great city. It is the free people of Baltimore who elected Mayor Room-To-Destroy.You can call the arson and looting and violence we are seeing on our television screens, rioting. That’s one way to describe the chaos. Another way to describe it is Democrat infighting. This is blue-on-blue violence. The thugs using the suspicious death of Freddie Gray (at the hands of a Democrat-led police department) to justify the looting that updates their home entertainment systems, are Democrats protesting Democrat leaders and Democrat policies in a Democrat-run city.Poverty has nothing to do with it. This madness and chaos and anarchy is a Democrat-driven culture that starts at the top with a racially-divisive White House heartbreakingly effective at ginning up hate and violence.Where I currently reside here in Watauga County, North Carolina, the poverty level is 31.3%. Median income is only $34,293. In both of those areas we are much worse off than Baltimore, that has a poverty rate of only 23.8% and a median income of $41,385.Despite all that, we don’t riot here in Watauga County. Thankfully, we have not been poisoned by the same left-wing culture that is rotting Baltimore, and so many other cities like it, from the inside out. We get along remarkably well. We are neighbors. We are people who help out one another. We take pride in our community, and are grateful for what we do have. We are far from perfect, but we work out our many differences in civilized ways. Solutions are our goal, not cronyism, narcissistic victimhood, and the blaming of others.One attitude we don’t have here is the soul-killing belief that somebody owes us something, which, of course, is a recipe for discontent. Because if you’re not getting what’s owed to you, how can you be anything but angry?Democrats and their never-ending grievance campaigns; their never-ending propaganda that government largess is the answer; their never-ending caves to corrupt unions; their never-ending warehousing of innocent children in failed public schools — that’s a Democrat problem, not America’s problem.I might believe Baltimore was an American problem if the city was interested in new ideas and a new direction under new leaders. But we all know that will never happen. After Democrat policies result in despair and anarchy, Democrats always demand more of the same, only bigger.And the media goes right along.And things only get worse.

Source: Baltimore Is a Democrat Problem, Not America’s Problem – Breitbart

Now get this..California cities are now going to build massive desalination plants for watering their desert abodes.  The power for these?  “Carbon Pollution” emitting Natural gas electricity plants.  Anyone unable to see the duplicity here?

 

The irony is inescapable: In reaction to the historic drought that has transformed the California dream into California dust, the state is now embarking on the construction of a wave of desalination plants that will turn ocean water into fresh water. Tragically, these power-hungry desalination plants will be running primarily on fossil fuel-generated electricity, meaning that California residents will have to commit global warming crimes (i.e. producing carbon dioxide) every time they flush their toilets or take a shower.Fresh water, in other words, is about to have a “fossil fuel consumption equivalent” across the state. Every gallon of water consumed will have a calculable CO2 emission profile and mercury pollution factor, meaning that a person will not be able to live in California without being a global warming sinner.California, of course, is the state that prides itself on being progressive and environmentally conscious. Yes its non-sustainable lifestyle consumed the region’s limited fossil water supplies to the point of near-collapse. Now, it must become America’s worst carbon dioxide producer just to provide basic water supplies to its people. And where will all the natural gas and coal come from that powers these desalination plants? The very same energy-producing states that Californians typically condemn for producing fossil fuels.

via Energy-hungry desalination plants will turn all California residents into global warming sinners and destroyers of life – NaturalNews.com.

Out Of Over $200,000 Raised, This $20 Donation Speaks Louder Than Any Liberal Threat – Chicks on the Right.

It’s not the Christians actively acting discriminatory against gays(who’s lifestyle is by definition a choice) but the other way around.  Also Christianity is also a lifestyle(a choice of how to live as well).

 

Yeah, you see, it’s actually the Christians that are the bigots….. or wait, maybe it’s not?

No one targeted pro-gay bakeries, but gay activists target Christian bakeries. “Support Gay Marriage” is one Christian bakery was sued for refusing to put that slogan on a cake for an event to support the gay agenda. Yet Christian bakeries that refuse to make pro-homosexual marriage cakes are getting sued left, right, and center. They get fined, they get death threats, and they lose their businesses.

….

So Shoebat.com decided to call some 13 prominent pro-gay bakers in a row. Each one denied us the right to have “Gay Marriage Is Wrong” on a cake and even used deviant insults and obscenities against us. One baker even said all sorts of profanities against Christians and ended the conversation by saying that she will make me a cookie with a large phallus on it.

And how many of those bakeries have been sued, threatened, or prosecuted by State Authorities?  Zero.

Even better — the alleged “pizzeria” that refused to cater a gay wedding….. never did refuse.

They were asked, hypothetically — and in fact said they didn’t care who came in to eat at their restaurant (gay, straight, blue, green, Martian or whatever); it was actively supporting an act their religious beliefs forbid they were opposed to and did not wish to support.

Note that the openly gay bakeries above, numbering 13 in a row that were polled, have not been (1) trashed on social media, (2) threatened with being burned the ground, (3) sued, (4) prosecuted by state authorities or in any other way had the same sanctions they demand be imposed on Christian bakeries — and pizzerias — imposed upon them!

ABC-57 reporter Alyssa Marino’s editor sends her on a half-hour drive southwest of their South Bend studio, to the small town of Walkerton (Pop. ~2,300). According to Alyssa’s own account on Twitter, she “just walked into their shop [Memories Pizza] and asked how they feel” about Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Owner Crystal O’Connor says she’s in favor of it, noting that while anyone can eat in her family restaurant, if the business were asked to cater a gay wedding, they would not do it. It conflicts with their biblical beliefs. Alyssa’s tweet mentions that the O’Connors have “never been asked to cater a same-sex wedding.”

So what did that business get for such a response?  They were inundated by knowingly false reviews on Yelp (that’s libel folks) by people who have never been there and in fact a female coach at a high school not too far away tweeted what looks like a threat to commit arson:

Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?

Betcha she wasn’t charged.

So let me see if I get this right.

You can pray at any church you want, as long as it’s not Christian.

You can have any religious beliefs you want, as long as they’re not Christian.

You can live to any religious code you’d like, as long as it’s not Christian.

We are in fact passing laws and enforcing them that act to punish people based on their religious beliefs and the fact that they live their lives to those beliefs, so long as that belief system is Christian.

This comports with the First Amendment and does not in fact exhibit a violation of The Constitution, Federal anti-discrimination law, never mind various laws enjoining threats to violent felonies (arson, for one)….. exactly how?

Does someone mind explaining how this concerted set of activities does not reach both State and Federal Racketeering and extortion statutes and why we who are not part of this pressure group should not boycott all states and corporations that back this sort of crap — starting right now and continuing forevermore until these bigots are prosecuted under the very law they are screaming about and got changed to their liking!

via But It’s All About DISCRIMINATION You See (RFRA) in [Market-Ticker].

I have been called bigoted because of my support for this.  They have one fundamental flaw.  it would be bigoted of me to discriminate black folks.  They cannot change the fact they are black.  As far as the LGBT(add whatever letters they want after this) goes if you listen to them talk and watch what they write this is referred to as a lifestyle…this means by it’s own definition it is a choice to live this way.  If i do not want to service somebody due to my religious beliefs(this right is protected by the First Amendment) I can.  I can actually relate to what Karl Denninger says below because when i first start my business i had somebody ask me to design a website for them worshiping vampires and satan.  i declined.  Today that would probably get me brought up on charges which i would fight based on my 1st amendment rights.  Folks not wanting to server cakes and stuff for homosexuals or ny other reason shouldn’t have to either.

As Karl Denninger also explains:

With Arkansas passing a RFRA bill (which the governor has now said needs “clarifications”) essentially identical to the Federal and Indiana laws I’m going to challenge you to think and then act against those who are arguing that this is a matter of “anti-discrimination” — that is, these bills intend to enable acts that should be prohibited.

I fully understand and in the general sense agree with the view that discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, sexual orientation and similar is wrong.

However, all rights are in fact negative things — that is, they do not include the ability to impose on other people but rather to prevent being imposed upon.

You have the right to freedom of speech, including utterly disgusting speech, but you do not have the right to force someone to listen to your speech.  If I turn my back and walk away, you cannot force me to listen.  I do not have to buy your megaphone for you, pay your printing bill, or pay for your internet service to broadcast your message.  In addition if your speech imminently and concretely causes harm (e.g. yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and as a result harm occurs) you can and should be held accountable for the harm.

Rights are not things laws grant; they exist by virtue of your humanity.  Laws (and governments generally) can only respect or disrespect rights; they cannot create them as government never had that power in the first place and you cannot grant that which you do not possess.

So let’s look at the RFRA laws and why they’re necessary — and proper.

The Federal RFRA was passed in response to employer, State and Federal government action taken against native american tribe members who use peyote in their religious ceremonies.  Despite the fact that they used said substance as an inherently ceremonial act both private employers and governments tried to ban them from the workplace and, in some cases, threatened to imprison them for exercising their religion.

Note carefully that a large part of the problem was private employers effectively enjoining someone from exercising their freedom of religion while not at work.  Because drug tests detect not the psychoactive ingredient itself but rather metabolic byproducts these tests acted as a means of barring participation in a religious ceremony that had no bearing on work performance or safety.

The RFRA did not “grant” any new rights; those rights already existed but were being ignored.  It merely reinforced the First Amendment and should have never had to be passed.  It was necessary, however, due to what was being imposed on these people, and it put a stop to those practices — despite the screaming from the loony right (at the time) about their “drug abuse.”

What the RFRA said was this:

  • A government policy that infringes on religious freedom must be to address a compelling interest.  That is, there must be a genuine compelling public policy matter under consideration that does real harm to real people if infringement of religious freedom is to be result

    AND

  • The remedy via the law that addresses the compelling interest must be through the least-restrictive means available.

This standard is known as “strict scrutiny” in legislative jargon and it is inherently the only proper standard where any right is involved.

Over the intervening years states have passed laws that severely infringe on religious freedom in a number of ways.  As part of and following the Civil Rights Act various laws were passed that, among other things, rendered discrimination in public accommodation unlawful.  These laws certainly survive a strict scrutiny test as (1) being able to obtain a room to sleep in or something to eat when you’re on the road irrespective of your race, color, creed or similar is a rational public policy matter (and the lack thereof is likely to do real harm to real people) and (2) the only rational remedy is the prohibition of that conduct.

But let us take a look at this sort of law and apply it to, for example, a sculptor.  Let’s posit for a moment that this sculptor is a deeply-convicted Christian who believes that he is not to make any sort of graven image and if he does, he will go to Hell when he dies.

Now let’s further posit that you come to him as an adherent of the Church of Satan and wish to commission him to create for you a statute of Baal.

These laws those lunatics on the left champion would force him to create said work of art despite the fact that he fundamentally believes doing so would cause him to be irretrievably damned to Hell — or go to prison now.

This sort of crap is why the RFRA was necessary and why these state laws are necessary.

The chef sets his menu and ingredients at his restaurant.  You have no right to demand that he not use, for example, bacon fat as his cooking oil.  Yet if you’re Muslim or Jewish such an ingredient in your food is utterly barred from you as a matter of religious law — period.  While the restaurant does provide a public accommodation (that is, test #1 passes) strict scrutiny does not permit you to demand that he change the oil the chef uses for his cooking.  He is required to serve anyone who is willing to pay the asking price for his dish, but you can’t dictate the ingredients.

Next up is the rooming house.  Let’s presume you have a religious requirement that your bed face East.  The hotel is built in such a fashion that the beds all face North.  You cannotdemand that the hotelier allow you to move the bed.  He must allow you to rent the room but he is not required to allow you to dictate to him how it is configured.

The RFRA is necessary because both of these instances are entirely within what the loony left screamers contemplate trying to force upon proprietors!

Note, however, that while the hotelier and chef have artistry as a component of their offering it is not individually tailored to the customer.  That is, the individual delivery of the good or service is of a utilitarian character; the artistry is in the design and not the individual rendering for each buyer.

Now let’s look at the cake baker, florist and photographer as points on a line where artistry becomes the essence of the transaction — with each being further along it.

This is a radically different situation.  Each cake is different; the ingredients that go into a cake may be close to the same but the assembly and decorating of each cake is individualized for each customer.

Each floral arrangement is different.  Each customer’s order is quite different from the last; while all are flowers the specific types and how they’re arranged is going to differ from one customer to the next.

For the photographer the very essence of their work is artistry; each individual shot is different!  From selection of the camera and lens to the ISO, F/stop, shutter speed, composition and lighting each is individually selected for each press of the shutter button.  And then, in the modern world, there’s even more artistry after the fact as the post-processing (by computer) is often as involved (if not more so!) than the capture of the image itself.

These sellers of services and goods approach, more-or-less in order, that of the sculptor.  Further, there is no public accommodation argument available for any of them: You can buy a cake and as many flowers as you’d like at WalMart and they don’t give a good damn why you want either.  Anyone can wield a camera and press a shutter button and at most weddings dozens do exactly that (even if they’re cellphone cameras.)

The value of the ingredients in said cake is a few dollars; the price is hundreds or thousands, and virtually all of it reflects artistic value, not utility.  The same is true, but even more so, of the florist and photographer.

RFRA laws reinforce the right of those people to exercise their religious freedom by refusing to participate in acts that violate their religious convictions.  When you demand that such an artist work for you even though it offends their religious beliefs you are in effect commanding a sculptor who is a deeply-convicted Christian to make you that statute of Baal so you can practice your religion, in this case Satanism!

What RFRA underlines and reinforces is that in order for you to make such a demand and enforce it you must show that the there is a compelling state interest in forcing the production of that statute (or those pictures) by that individual (in other words you are substantially prevented from obtaining that good or service as a whole) and further, that forcing that singular provider to do so is the least intrusive means of you getting a statute or those images, flowers or cake.

The problem is that neither test succeeds — you not only have no compelling state interest (you have a selection of many places to get flowers, cakes and pictures and none of those are in any way necessary) but in addition since you can buy a camera for a small amount of money and anyone can take pictures there is no argument to be made that demanding said photographer take them is the least-intrusive remedy for what you are complaining about.

The Federal RFRA law was signed by Bill Clinton and passed by overwhelming margins in both the House and Senate.  The State versions have become necessary because of the lunatic lefty screamfest that has in fact caused small business people to be attacked for refusing to practice their art in a way that directly violates their religious beliefs.

To those on the lunatic left who want to threaten economic boycotts, please be aware that this sword has two edges and I think it’s time for the rest of us to figure out who you are, identify you, and boycott you in return.  

And indeed I’m going to start, by myself, as a boycott of one aimed directly at all of you who infest places such as Seattle and Californicated.  I urge the rest of you to join me.

I bet there are more of us than there are of you.