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 haven’t written anything for a while – between work and a death in the wife’s family, there hasn’t been much time to write.  But just listening to the news is enough for me to do a slow burn.  For instance…

The Hildebeast’s response to a Congressional inquiry to in her private email server’s contents is to wipe the server’s hard drives.  Since the Hidlebeast was using this same server for government business when she was Secretary of State, the emails were not hers to delete, but needed to be reviewed by Congress as to their relevancy to her former position.  I don’t know how many Federal laws she has broken in her 1) using a private, potentially unsecure, server for government business, 2) deleting said records and emails, 3) failing to sign her exit papers, and 4) obstructing a Congressional inquiry/investigation.  For the Democrats to keep promoting the Hildebeast as a potential Presidential candidate is disgusting given this latest action and the history of this person.  However, if she does become the next President, expect more of the same actions as the current President, only worse.

The Bergdahl case has taken another turn for the worse for the Administration.  Bergdahl has been charged with desertion and “misbehaving before the enemy”, the last being almost equivalent to treason.  This entire case has shown that this Administration has gotten the entire Bergdahl case wrong, and not only wrong, but with potentially disastrous results.

While the talking heads at the White House (Earnest, Psaki, Harf, and Carney) have all spun trading five terrorists for one soldier narrative every possible way (including calling it a “good deal”), the facts remains that this person was a suspected deserter from day one, multiple soldiers were killed or injured looking for this person, and the President illegally released said terrorists from detention.  Not a good move, Mr. President…


Negotiating with Iran concerning their nuclear program will not bear any lasting agreements.  Iran is hell-bent on developing nuclear capabilities for both weapons and power generation, although it is for the weapons that they really want.  Iran’s stated policy is to remove Israel from the map, and to promote (dictate) their version of Islam throughout the region.  With these goals in mind, can anyone realistically expect Iran to negotiate and agree upon anything in good faith?


Last thought on this subject – The nuclear “deal” with Iran has a deadline of Tuesday, March 31.  Too bad it’s not due until the next day because it would have been very appropriate.


Harry Reid is stepping down from the Senate.  Good riddance…  I now wonder who will replace this most insidiously corrupt politician – Schumer, Durbin, or some other power-hungry elitist politician that is just as corrupt as Reid is…

I saw in the news that a person (who is black and has a criminal history) has been shot and killed by police.  The Boston faction of Black Lives Matter is making a big stink about this.  This shouldn’t fly too far – this person was shot after he shot a police officer in the face.  But then again, facts do not seem to matter in such cases…

One of the Left’s latest darlings is Lena Dunham, star of HBO’s “Girls”.  She has admitted in her book to committing some disgusting acts with her sister, and lied about being raped by a “Republican” student – all yawned at by the Liberal establishment.  Now she has written an article in “The New Yorker” in which she poses a quiz about who she is asking the question about – a dog or her Jewish boyfriend.

Now this is stirring up some discussion, but not by the hard-core Liberals.  Apparently, for these people, the more shocking and depraved the action is or the conversation, the better it is.  Comparing the actions of dogs and Jews is never acceptable, even in jest.

If a conservative person had written such an article, the Left would have been first in line howling for blood.  But since it is one of their own, it’s OK and she deserves a pass.  Unbelievable…or maybe not…

My home state of Indiana has passed their version of a Religious Freedom law, and the Liberals are losing their minds.  I thought Lawrence Meyers for Townhall.com states it best (excerpts from the article follow – please read to get the full effect):

Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law is not anti-gay. It is not anti-Black. It is not anti-Semitic. It is, however, pro-religion and pro-freedom and that’s why Leftists hate it.

The law is explicit. The government cannot substantially burden anyone from exercising one’s religion. If it does so, it must “further a compelling government interest and be the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.”

This is no different than the laws in 19 other states, and the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act that passed in 1993 – by unanimous vote in the House, 97-3 in the Senate, and signed by the ultra-Right-wing-nutjob Bill Clinton.

Anything involving a public service isn’t going to be denied to a gay person. Furthermore, if a person or a company or religious organization engages in any kind of discrimination for “religious reasons”, the courts apply the test of “strict scrutiny” (the Sherbert Test) to the claim of religious infringement.

The Ugly Truth

It is the Leftists that are bigots. To them, it doesn’t matter if the rights of other people that get trampled on in the process. It only matters when the rights of people Leftists care about get trampled on.

The Left is so very strident against discrimination – oh, but only gays, blacks, Hispanics, illegal immigrants, and Radical Islamists need apply for the victocracy.

Yet they don’t care about discriminating against Christians, and will do anything they can to align themselves against the Jews and Israel, because Leftist philosophy is anti-freedom, anti-religion, and ultimately anti-human.

The great irony is that these laws were passed because a gay couple decided to sue a bakery that wouldn’t make them a cake for their gay wedding. Instead of the couple just taking their business elsewhere, and doing everything they could to shame the business that turned them down, to put up awful reviews on Yelp, to protest in front of the store, and promote the more open-minded bakery, they chose to be vindictive.

Which forced the very governmental action they are now decrying.

Yep – when the laws don’t go their way, the Leftists cry “foul” – shameful and pitiful, actually…


This is all I can stand to write about this time.. Hope everyone is well, and is keeping their blood pressure down in the face of the insanity that we are dealing with on a daily basis.

The Gay Agenda and Vote

I know that somewhere along the line, someone is going to flame me for a post I write, and hopefully, they’ll read the post in its entirety before uncorking the gas can & lighting the match.  And if any post is going to do that, this will be the one.

Anytime someone starts talking or writing about rights for homosexuals, especially gay marriage, the emotions start rising, and the words start flying before any rationality kicks in.  So let’s make a few things clear.

I have a cousin who is a lesbian, and has been living with her life-partner for over 20 years.  I know of married couples that don’t make it that long, nor have the dedication or commitment of staying together for better or worse.  I have worked with homosexuals, and haven’t felt threatened (although sometimes I have been uncomfortable).  With that being said…

The majority of religions in the world condemn homosexuality, citing it as unnatural and not part of the procreation of the human race.  If we look at the Old Testament, God nuked a city or two for the practice.  Islamic-controlled nations stone or otherwise execute homosexuals (pay attention, you Liberals!).  The modern Christian movement that I was raised in states “Love the sinner, hate the sin,” although there are other Christian churches that seem to confuse & mix the two.

Let’s also note that governments also have made laws banning homosexual relations and acts for moral and health reasons.  And those laws are still on the books in many areas of this country, although they are rarely enforced – non-discrimination laws have mostly overridden these laws & ordinances.

Homosexual couples are fighting for their rights, specifically, for an equal legal standing as a married couple.  They are fighting for this standing using the legal system, and vocally opposing any religious organizations (or others) that voice their objections.  They are also using the educational system to promote their points of view on the acceptability of the homosexual lifestyle – I seem to remember a few years back about a grade-school reader that has the premise that a child has two daddies living in the same house without a mommy present.

Now I’m not going to sit here and pronounce that I have all the solutions – there is no solution that will make everyone happy or comfortable.  Religion is theology and beliefs, and those will not be changed, whether it is Christian, Islam, or the Church of Bob.  Straight couples or singles, like me, will also feel uncomfortable or object to homosexual teachings in the schools, or the promotion of an alternative lifestyle to their children.  The homosexual agenda, in my opinion, is really one to garner acceptance of their lifestyle from a legal, religious, and moral standpoints.

Starting with religion and morality, fat chance.  If the religion prohibits the homosexual act, then unless a religious movement is started that redefines homosexuality as not a sin and not a moral conflict with beliefs, then the religious angle is out.  That now leaves the legal angle.

Laws are fickle things, created and passed by politicians with agendas.  The agenda used to be for the simple reason for improving greater good of the country, and that also included morality (remember Prohibition?).  Now, it’s for garnering votes for the election, and morality (or any semblance thereof) is out the window.

And this is why I object to the recent announcement of President Obama’s support of gay marriage.  This is nothing more than politics, a political expediency designed to 1) appeal to a specific Liberal voting base, 2) fulfill a 3-year old campaign promise to support gay marriage to the states, and 3) to distract the voters from his abysmal record in office.  President Obama is making the rounds in full campaign mode, making speeches and appearing on talk shows, promoting his “new” position.

Why the homosexual community doesn’t see that they are being used by the politicians is beyond me except that they will take whatever support they can get.  The means justifies the ends in this case – President Obama gets support from another group, and that group gets what they want (kind of…).

Whether or not President Obama announced his support of gay marriage, I see where the legality of a homosexual marriage will eventually be approved as a “legal union,” probably within the next five to ten years.  The laws are going to be changed on the local and state level, probably not on the Federal level (unless Congress makes that their business too).  And I see where churches will be created or change their theology to accommodate homosexual marriages.  This will happen without the campaign grandstanding of President Obama.

No, I do not like the thought of homosexuality being front and center in not only a Presidential campaign, but in our society as well.  Do I hate homosexuals?  No, I do not – how can I when I have a cousin that is a lesbian?  But that does not mean that I have to have the homosexual agenda thrust in my face every day.  And that, my readers, is what I find most offensive.

Ground Zero Mosque

One of the principles of this country is religious freedom.  This is the freedom to practice (or not) your faith (if you have one) without government interference.  This is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

From this aspect, what the New York Council did by approving the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero is legally correct.  However, from the standpoint of representing the people of New York, they failed miserably.  The hue and cry of New Yorkers, arguably one of the most liberal cities in the United States, against the construction of the mosque is loud and clear.  Thus, a “Government for the People, By the People, and For the People” failed the People.

Do I have a problem with people worshipping Mohammed?  No, I don’t.  I have worked with Moslems, Hindus, Atheists, Christians of all different denominations, and Wiccans.  I’ve probably have worked with someone who is a member of the Church of Bob for all I know.  But here’s where I have problems with Islam.

Any religion that states that it is the duty of each follower to slay and/or oppress the infidel (non-follower of their belief) automatically has my opposition to the religion (not the people).  A religion that allows “honor” killings of women, and demands punishments of any that criticize the faith is definitely not the tolerant “Religion of Peace” that they promote their faith to be.  The version of peace that they offer is an all-Islam world ruled from a religious/political government via Sharia law, but I also wonder about that too.  Shiite and Sunni factions have been killing each other since Mohammed’s death over who Mohammed’s successor should be!  I wonder how “peaceful” that world would be…

Now I realize that Christian history is not as clean as we would all like it to be.  The Crusades, and the Catholic & Protestant conflicts don’t promote the message of the New Testament.  But Christianity has evolved to embrace the diversity of the denominations.  Islam, on the other hand, has stayed much the same – violent and intolerant. 

Which makes the approval of the mosque over the People of New York’s objections even more incredible.  New York City has experienced first hand what members of this religion have done and are capable of doing.  What makes it even more incredible is the increased knowledge of Islam’s philosophy and methods of taking over countries.  Case in point – Great Britain.  I’ll not go into the details of what Muslim immigrants have done to that country and its people, but needless to say, it is only a foreshadowing of what awaits us.

But I will also state one other item before I close out this post.  Supporters of Islam, whether they are Moslem or not, ask (or rather, demand) tolerance, empathy, sensitivity, and understanding for their religion.  However, it doesn’t seem to be a two-way street.  If so, then they wouldn’t be insisting on building a mosque only yards away from an atrocity committed by members of their faith.

The Speech President Obama Won’t Give…

Dennis Prager wrote the following over at Creator’s Syndicate about the speach that President Obama should have given this morning in Egypt.

This week, President Barack Obama is scheduled to give a major address in Cairo to the Muslim world. He is likely to reiterate what he has stated previously to Muslim audiences, that America has no battle with Islam, deeply respects Islam and the Muslim world, and apologizes for any anti-Muslim sentiment that any Americans may express.

Here is what an honest address would sound like:

Thank you for the honor of addressing the Egyptian people and the wider Muslim world.

I am here primarily to dispel some of the erroneous beliefs many Muslims have about America and to thereby reassure you that America has no desire to be at war with the Muslim world.

To my great disappointment, many Muslims have come to believe that my country has declared war on Muslims and Islam.

Because of this widespread belief, I said in an interview with al-Arabiya a few months ago, that we need to restore “the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.”

Lets’ look a little deeper at that relationship. For the truth is, as noted by the Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist for the American newspaper the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer, in the last 20-30 years America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for Muslims. We Americans engaged in five military campaigns on behalf of Muslims, each one resulting in the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bosnia and Kosovo, as well as the failed 1992-93 Somalia intervention to feed starving African Muslims — in which] 43 Americans were killed — were all humanitarian exercises. In none of them was there a significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. So, in fact, in these 20 years, my country, the United States of America has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any other nation, Muslim or non-Muslim.

While I recognize that gratitude is the rarest positive human quality, I need to say — because candor is the highest form respect — that America has not only not received little gratitude from the Muslim world, it has been the object of hatred, mass murder, and economic attack from Muslim individuals, groups, and countries.

Just to cite a few of many examples from the last 40 years:

In 1973, Muslim terrorists attacked the American embassy in Sudan and murdered our country’s ambassador, Cleo Noel, and the chief deputy of the mission, George C. Moore. Later in 1973, the Arab oil embargo against America sent my country into a long and painful recession. In 1977, Muslim militants murdered the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, Frances E. Meloy, and Robert O.Waring, the U.S. economic counselor. In 1979 radical Muslims violently attacked my country’s embassy in Teheran, and for 14 months held American diplomats hostage, often in appalling conditions. In 1998, Muslim militants bombed the American embassy in Nairobi, killing 12 Americans and 280 Kenyans, and bombed our embassy in Tanzania, killing another 11 Americans. Then, on Sept. 11, 2001, 19 Muslims who had been living in America slit the throats of American pilots and flight attendants and then flew airplanes into civilian buildings in New York City, burning 3,000 innocent Americans to death.

So, my friends here in Egypt, between America and the Muslim world, who exactly has been making war on whom?

I have enormous differences with my predecessor, President George W. Bush. But please remember that less than a week after thousands of Americans were slaughtered in the name of your religion, President Bush went to the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C., and announced that Islam was a religion of peace. Moreover, in a country of 300 million people, of whom only a few million are Muslim, there is virtually no recorded incident of anti-mosque or other anti-Muslim violence despite the butchery of 9/11 and the popular support for Osama Bin Laden that we saw in the Muslim world after 9/11.

I ask you to please ask yourselves what Egypt’s reaction would have been had 19 Christians, in the name of Christianity, slaughtered 3,000 Egyptians. How would the Christians of Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East have fared?

As it is, because of persecution by Muslim majorities, Christians have been leaving the Middle East in such great numbers that for the first time since Christ, there are large parts of the Middle East that have become empty of both Jews and Christians.

Yet, at the same time, millions of Muslims have moved to Western countries and to America. It is fair to say that the freest, and often the safest, place in the world for a practicing Muslim is the United States of America.

Muslim-Americans are treated exactly as other Americans are treated. It is exceedingly rare to hear any anti-Muslim bigotry in my country. And while there is some criticism of the Muslim world, but there is far more criticism of Christianity in America than of Islam.

Unfortunately, in much of the Muslim world today anti-Jewish speeches and writing are frequently identical to the genocidal anti-Semitism one heard and read in Nazi Germany. This is a blight on your civilization. How can you seriously charge that America is at war with Islam when in fact it is much of the Islamic world that is at war with Jews and Christians?

I know that you would like me to announce that America is abandoning its support for Israel. But every president since Harry Truman, Democrat and Republican, has been passionate about enabling Israel to defend itself from those who wish to destroy it. And that, dear Muslims, is the issue. America will continue to support a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute, but the issue has never really been about two states. It has always been about Palestinians and other Arabs and Muslims recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

As a friend of Egypt and of the Muslim world, I want to say something from the bottom of my heart: The day the Arab world ceases obsessing over the existence of a Jewish state the size of Belize will be a great day for the Arab and Muslim worlds. Your obsession with Israel has cost you dearly in every area of social development. This is easily demonstrated. If Israel were destroyed — and the so-called “right of return” of millions of third-generation Palestinian refugees would ensure that outcome as effectively as would a nuclear device from Iran — what difference would that make to the Egyptian economy, to Egyptian lack of freedoms, or anything else that matters to Egyptians? In my opinion, none whatsoever. Preoccupation with Israel has simply enabled the Arab world to not look within for 60 years.

Finally, my fellow Americans would feel more confident in American-Muslim relations if they had ever seen a large demonstration of Muslims anywhere against all the terror committed by Muslims in the name of Islam — whether in London, Madrid, New York, Bali, Cairo, or Mumbai. The mark of a great civilization — and Arab civilization was indeed once great — is a willingness to criticize itself.

Thank you again for this opportunity to address you. I could have patronized you by exaggerating American misdeeds and ignoring yours. But I have too much respect for you.

Shukran jiddan.

I hope all the apologists out there stop and think about whom and what they are defending.