Discrimination or What?

I have been and continue to be discriminated against as well as been harassed, called names, and otherwise maligned.  For instance:

  • I have been denied entrance to various places of business.
  • I cannot enter various government buildings unhindered & without scrutiny.
  • I cannot step onto the property of the Post Office without committing a Federal crime.
  • I do not have a criminal record, but am often portrayed by the media as a criminal.
  • Various public figures have indirectly called for my incarceration or worse.
  • I have been called “a nut” and other names by the media.

Can you guess why?

It is because I hold a Michigan CPL (Concealed Pistol License), and believe in our Second Amendment.

As to the first three items in the list:  Yes, I can go to these places, but only if I disarm myself & leave the safety of my family and myself to others (why would I want to do that?).  For the next three, various media outlets and celebrities call for my forcible disarmament and/or incarceration and/or bodily harm for simply exercising my Second Amendment rights.

Now my reaction to a lot of the above is to simply avoid these establishments except when absolutely necessary.  It’s not to run and scream to the media or hire attorneys to sue these various entities into compliance.  Quite unlike another group…

The reaction by the militant arm of the LGBT lobby to my home state of Indiana’s passage of their version Religious Freedom Restoration Act has, in my opinion, been way over the top.  Considering that there has been a Federal law signed by their hero Bill Clinton and 19 other states, my question would be:  Why now?

Their vocal objections to the law has nothing to do with a baker or pizzeria denying catering a homosexual wedding based on a religious point of view.  If it did, then why only target a Christian-based business?  Why not a Muslim-based business offering the same services?  Here’s my humble opinion why…

The LGBT lobby is wanting to force religious organizations to remove bans against homosexual behavior in not only their policies, but scriptures as well.   They want to do this by having judicial decisions and laws passed banning discrimination based upon any religious practices to the contrary, and to ban scriptures describing homosexual behavior as a sin as hate speech.  This way, their lifestyle is then legitimatized from both legal and religious standpoints. 

Since the dominant religion in the United States is Christian-based, then this will be the religion that will be targeted.  It also does not help that the Christian religion is tolerant (hate the sin, love the sinner), and several denominations have reversed their stances on homosexual practices within their church. 

Thus, this is more about forcing acceptance and tolerance over the rights of others rather than respecting those differing opinions and rights.  The militant LGBT would rather ignore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to further their agenda.  Otherwise, those same people who were supposedly denied service by a baker on religious grounds would do exactly what I would have done – find another bakery to fill their requirements.  Surely, there must be LGBT friendly bakers somewhere in that city…

Dr. Brian Joondeph has the following to say about the Indiana law on AmericanThinker.com (excerpts from article):

What exactly is so controversial about this Indiana law? It “Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion,” unless there is a “compelling governmental interest.”

Maybe this is why the left is in a lather, as their worldview is that most of what we do in our mundane daily lives is a “compelling interest” of the government. What light bulbs we buy, how warm or cool we keep our homes, what size soft drinks we order, whether we sprinkle salt on our food, and so on.

One man’s compelling government interest is another man’s liberty or pursuit of happiness. As I wrote last year, what is the compelling government interest in whether a Christian baker chooses to not bake a cake for a same sex wedding? Or whether a kosher Jewish deli refuses to serve a ham and cheese sandwich? Or whether a Muslim printer declines to print copies of a Mohammed cartoon?

These are the freedoms enshrined by the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If a Muslim female wears a hijab to school, this is a constitutionally protected right. Why are bakers and photographers not afforded the same constitutional protections?

Indiana, along with 19 other states, enacted a law allowing its residents to practice their religion free from government scrutiny. It took the 20th such state law to garner the attention of the left.

Yes indeed…it took them this long to figure out that many people, including their beloved Democrats, actually believe that the right of People to follow their religious convictions rather than the demands of a few.

The First and Second Amendments of the Constitution reinforce the Rights of the People that no government or organization can legally or morally subvert.  These are the Rights of the People to be respected by all, not excepted by a few.

(In the interests of full disclosure, I have friends and a cousin who are homosexuals.  While they want legalization of their partnerships, they also respect the rights of others.)

I Have a Nightmare

This is going to be a post with several parts.  Sit back with your favorite beverage and sip between the lines – to do otherwise could present a choking hazard.

This past week marked the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.  Oh, how far his dream has fallen!

While I did not watch the speeches, what I saw of the speeches was anything but uplifting.  In fact, it was more of the same inflammatory speechmaking that placed blame on everything else despite the facts that the Black community is self destructing.  How can I make such a statement?

Bill O’Rielly, Walter Williams, William Sowell, and Ben Carson all point out statistics that show that the Black community owns their problems external from other groups.  Walter Williams had these comments:

The poverty rate among blacks is 36 percent. Most black poverty is found in female-headed households. The poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994 and is about 8 percent today. The black illegitimacy rate is 75 percent, and in some cities, it’s 90 percent. But if that’s a legacy of slavery, it must have skipped several generations, because in the 1940s, unwed births hovered around 14 percent.

Along with the decline of the black family comes anti-social behavior, manifested by high crime rates. Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Using the 94 percent figure means that 262,621 were murdered by other blacks. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation’s population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, the black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it’s 22 times that of whites.

This is far from the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King where he wanted all people to stand on their own two feet.  From the post Equal Diversity:

Government sponsored quotas & regulations will not change people’s attitudes toward diversity. All these will do is promote division, dissention, and resentment. I have noticed in recent years an increase of these attitudes. This is NOT what Martin Luther King had in mind.

His vision looked for the Negro people to stand side by side with the White people as equals, and to get there by self-sufficiency, not by a government mandate. He wanted his people to rise up to their potential, to stand on their own two feet, not by some law or subsidy. Patronage of the Negro was not his vision, but to join the human race as equals to any other ethnic group, to enjoy the fruits of hard labor through equal opportunity, and not through quotas. It is truly a travesty that his own people have hindered this vision instead of completing it.

One of the things that I noticed during the speeches was an undercurrent of asking for increased governmental support in resolving the Black communities problems.  Government cannot solve the Black communities problems – only they can if lead by leaders like Dr. King.

I watched President Obama’s speech yesterday concerning the potential involvement of the United States into the Syria conflict.  A few of his statements lit me up like a Christmas tree.  Let’s take the following statement:

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.  I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  And that’s why I’ve made a second decision:  I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.

First off, the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, although the politicians have turned it into a Democracy.  For a short essay on the difference, follow this link, and Rick Santelli had this explanation:

The difference is, in a republic, the sovereignty rests with every individual person. With a democracy, it rests with a group. And this is a big distinction. Because we elect leaders to represent us. So when they go to Washington, they are there for a reason. The president doesn’t hold all the cards. The cards are evenly split up!

Second, it is not President Obama’s decision to seek authorization, but it is his Constitutional duty to ask for authorization.  Now perhaps I’m taking this statement out of context, but the way the speech was structured, he made it sound like it was his choice to ask for Congressional approval, not his duty. But his statement further down the line makes me think it’s the former, and not the latter:

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.

The only reason for a President to take military action is if there is a clear and present danger to the United States.  Syria does not present such a threat – in fact, their conflict would more likely be termed a civil war.

Another statement:

I’m confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors.  I’m comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable.  As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.

Without UN approval?  Is he totally ignorant of International Law?  As of this time, only France has stated that they would support Obama’s action, and that doesn’t fill me with warm fuzzy feelings.  In fact, it fills me with dread.

After President Obama finished his speech, he turned around and walked away.  From his body language, I would say he was angry, and I would say that he was angry because he cannot do what he wants to do – which is cover his butt for making the idiotic “red line” declaration and appearing weak to the rest of the world.  I personally think that the reason he was 45 minutes late for his own speech is that someone was on the phone with him advising him not to act on his own in taking military action in Syria without Congressional approval, and a hasty rewrite of the speech he wanted to give.

The Powell Doctrine states that before military action is taken, does the action meet the following criteria:

  • Is a vital national security interest threatened?
  • Is there a clear attainable objective?
  • Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
  • Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
  • Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
  • Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
  • Is the action supported by the American people?
  • Does the United States have genuine broad international support?

The Syrian crisis meets none of the above criteria.  Congress should follow the United Kingdom’s example and refuse authorization.  If President Obama orders military action after said refusal, then President Obama should be impeached and removed from office.

The more time that goes by only highlights the disaster that ObamaCare is.  The unintended consequences are just piling up, and the financial fallout for everyone will be horrendous. 

Let’s consider the following scenario which I know will happen (my thanks to my wife for the following!):

  • A person is working for a small company when the company reduces the person’s hours to under 30 to avoid paying for employee healthcare because the company cannot afford it under the ObamaCare legislation (the fine is cheaper than paying for the worker’s coverage).
  • The person cannot afford paying for the coverage out of pocket because of the high cost of the coverage and the loss of income due to reduced hours.
  • The person must take a second job to make ends meet, and instead of working just 40 hours a week at one job, must now work another 10 to 30 hours a week to meet the bills.
  • The cost of healthcare coverage is still too high even with the second job, so the person pays the fine out of the paycheck from the second job.
  • The result is that the person is working 2 jobs, doesn’t spend any time with their family, pays a fine to the government, probably still cannot make ends meet, and still doesn’t have health care coverage.

So tell me again – What is the advantage of ObamaCare? 

Will the Real Racist Please Stand Up?

Before I start in on this particular post, please go over and visit Seane-Anna at Sinatra’s Bane.  She is going through post-operative chemo & radiation treatments for cancer, and could use some words of encouragement.

I’m off on vacation this week, and keeping busy with stuff around the house.  The main project that I have is tiling a bathroom in the basement.  Water from the toilet tank leaked all over the carpet & mold set in, so rather than go through that mess again, it’s taking out the carpet & padding, and tiling the bathroom.

While setting tile earlier today, I had the radio on & a segment came on about the constant problem with racism in Detroit, hiring practices, and social injustice.  After five minutes of listing to the blather, I had enough.  I turned it off.

Folks, I am not a racist.  I do not believe that any one race is superior to another.  I also do not believe that any race should enjoy special “privileges” in getting a leg up on any other race to equalize a perceived “social injustice.” 

Are people in Detroit disadvantaged?  I would say “Yes”, but would qualify it by stating that some of these disadvantages are self-inflicted.  I look at the string of corrupt politicians elected by the people of Detroit over the years, who looted and lined their pockets while the city imploded, and the people of Detroit still defend these con-artists stating that it is because of their race that they were prosecuted.  The latest prosecution and conviction of Kwame Kilpatrick is a case in point. 

I also look at these same people that constantly have their hands out for the government to take care of them instead of taking care of themselves.  Here’s the classic “for instance” sound bites:

It’s no longer providing for yourself, it’s having others providing you with your needs.  How sad, but we are now there, and I’m digressing from the point of the post…

The election of President Obozo seemed to promise an end of racism.  After all, a non-white person was elected to the highest office of the land, so we, as a country, have finally shed our racism.  Not by a long shot…  If anything, there has been more and more polarization between all of the races.  I look at the current (illegal) immigration controversy, the past Professor Gates / Obozo “acting stupidly” episode, and the apparent perverse double-standard that permeates all levels of government.

Robin of Berkely has some great insights from her post “Liberal Racism”:

Obama has been the Teflon President because of the color of his skin. Liberals are giving him a free ride.

We see it every day when criticism of Obama evokes cries of racism. But who are the real racists here?

Are the racists those conservatives who hold everyone accountable to the same standards? Who believe that people should be judged by their character and their behavior, not their race, creed, or color?

Or are the racists those white liberals who treat Obama like some delicate flower? While liberals still eviscerate George W. Bush, any judgment of Obama is off limits.

It’s not just whites who are enabling Obama by acting like his protectors. Blacks voted en masse for Obama. Sadly, what has he offered them?

From the start, it was obvious that Obama, though half-black, had never done anything for the black community. In Chicago, his actions hurt blacks.

Obama was a huge supporter of Tony Rezko, a notorious slumlord, now a felon. When Obama served in the state senate, black residents picketed Rezko’s offices to protest their rat-infested, unheated apartments.   

And what has Obama done to help blacks since he’s been president? One of Obama’s first actions as president was eliminating the DC school voucher program that offered poor black kids the chance for a better life.

Obama and the Democrats have created record debt and crushed the economy. A depressed economy hits minority groups especially hard.

And then there is Obama’s push for amnesty for illegals. How is giving jobs to millions of illegals going to help blacks, who have unconscionably high unemployment rates?

But there is one perk Obama has afforded the black underclass — the right to behave brutally. Obama’s Justice Department dropped charges for those New Black Panthers who allegedly threatened and harassed people at election sites. 

This encouragement to act out is deeply cynical and manipulative. It’s designed to control racial minorities and promote social unrest.

Although Obama has only agitated, not uplifted, Americans, most liberals regard him as their icon. To them, Obama is the Great Black Hope. 

Liberals handle Obama with kid gloves. In the meantime, they turn a blind eye to his dangerous policies, like flirting with radical Islam. Liberals make excuses for the plummeting economy, blaming their usual bogeyman: conservatives.

They refuse to see Obama without the rose-colored glasses. Why? Because when it comes to Obama, liberals see a black man deserving of special treatment.

Will the real racist please stand up?

Perhaps I’m just being cynical, but I’m really starting to think that Robin is on to something.  Like Rahm Immanuel has been quoted as saying “You never let a serious crisis go to waste,” I’m beginning to wonder if racism is a crisis whose flames are constantly fanned to provide reasons for personal wealth and political power.  And that, my friends, is sinister indeed, because it makes the next quote even more chilling:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." —William Pitt

And thus, our Federal Government has seen fit to level the social justice playing field by diverting taxpayer dollars to the inner cities with the stated intent of raising the standard of living of those people trapped in that urban jungle.  Instead, what has happened is that they have created a class of dependant people with failing schools and crime such that the police will not patrol certain areas either during the day or night.  Given the video above and that the Detroit school system is broke and broken are just a couple of examples of what is happening in my backyard and in the backyards of cities across this nation.

It is time to take off the rose-colored glasses and don the blindfold so that we are truly color- and religion-blind.  The time for special classes, races, and religions is over if we expect this country to survive and prosper for the next several generations.

Reverse Racism

I guess I just can’t get away from commenting further on the Professor Gates arrest for disorderly conduct, and President Obama’s “acting stupidly” comment.  Perhaps this incident offends my sense of fair play, the idea of “innocent before proven guilty,” or the thought that a highly educated professor at one of the nations most respected institutions feels the need to accuse a police officer investigating a possible break in at his residence of racism.  One does wonder if alcohol was involved, but I digress…

Always on Watch has an excellent post of the incident (here), and a video from a Pastor Manning (below).  Viewing the video is probably better than any comment that I could make other than people of color should listen to the Pastor and understand how foolish they are when accusing others of racism:

Let’s consider this statement from an earlier post:

His [Dr. Martin Luther King] vision looked for the Negro people to stand side by side with the White people as equals, and to get there by self-sufficiency, not by a government mandate. He wanted his people to rise up to their potential, to stand on their own two feet, not by some law or subsidy. Patronage of the Negro was not his vision, but to join the human race as equals to any other ethnic group, to enjoy the fruits of hard labor through equal opportunity, and not through quotas. It is truly a travesty that his own people have hindered this vision instead of completing it.

Do the constant complaints of racism where there is none really achieve this goal?  No, they do not.  What the baseless accusations do is deepen the chasm between all people, and hinder any civility that our society is trying to accomplish.

This is what our wonderful, politically-correct, non-confrontational society has borne – the apparent elevation of one group over another.  All by one word that both offends and puts everyone on the defense.  And this is why I believe hate crimes such as an accusation of racism is not beneficial to anyone.  It gets in the way by presuming beliefs are more important than the facts of the potential crime or dispute.  So now it is an emotional or thought crime, not an actual one.

Starting to sound like 1984 or Minority Report all over again…

Morgan Freeman has a solution to the racism problem:

Is it really that simple?  That only depends on if the hate-mongers among us, of all colors, decide to decease & desist from the useless rhetoric that divides instead of uniting.  From the same past post – try this instead:

Stop the politicking and fundraisers, and turn your attention to changing the attitudes of the people you claim to represent. Aid them in finding solutions instead of assigning blame. Support getting the able-bodied off of Welfare, and find jobs, educational opportunities, and other positions that will improve their standard of living. Recognize the rapper/drug culture for what it is, a self-destructive blight upon your people, and kill it. Instill in these same people self-respect and self-control, the understanding of tolerance, and the fruits of social change will be forthcoming. You, the self-appointed leaders of your race/community must first demonstrate leadership before any positive changes can even be expected to occur.

Unfortunately, highlighting perceived inequalities, slights, and making inflammatory speeches is where these “leaders” garner attention, power, and yes, money.

Are there idiots out there that are racists and cause harm on the basis of skin color?  Yes, there are.  That cannot be denied.  But calling every incident between people of different ethnicities racially motivated detracts from any problems and becomes a problem in of itself.  Thus, the actual problem gets lost in the shuffle.  Which kind of begs the question:

Why can’t we all get along?