Don’t Apologize for Me

"It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him." — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, 1785

Last week the Chris Matthews, the spittle spewing big mouth liberal on MSNBC, went on record apologizing to the Black community for all whites, which he deemed as racist. Speak for yourself Mr. Matthews, don’t speak for me.

I have nothing to apologize for. For starters my ancestors from Ohio and Pennsylvania fought on the side of the North in our Civil War. Some were seriously wounded and a few died. What did your ancestors do Mr. Matthews?

I have and still do live next to Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. In fact my current neighbor is a Black man who owns his own home, works hard as an independent contractor, and doesn’t think much of our current president. I have hired Blacks, Hispanics and Asians and mentored then in their professional careers. I have given them choice assignments based on merit and capability — not because of their race or heritage. Does this make me a racist? I don’t think so. So when it comes to what I have done keep your mouth shut Mr. Matthews. You are nothing but a race hustling, big mouth liberal out to increase your falling ratings. Speak for yourself!

Yes I discriminate and have done so my entire life. I discriminate on the friends I have and the people I wish to associate with like liberals like you Mr. Matthews. I discriminate on where I want to live, the products I buy, the food I eat, and the places I visit. I discriminate on the books I read, the Internet sites I visit, and the TV channels I watch (that’s why I don’t watch MSNBC). These forms of discrimination are called choices and we all make choices every day. It’s the way rational people live their lives.

I've always been sensitive to race. I don't support racism or racists. I've never considered myself racist and don't think others would consider me a racist. How could I be one now?

I never enslaved anyone, prevented them from working or voting or living in my neighborhood or joining my clubs. I don't think there was any proof that George Zimmerman did either.

But now I know if I ever cross or injure a black person — no matter how justified my actions might be — there is a presumption that I am a racist.

I don't like it at all. It isn't true. But here I am, non-racist me trapped inside this new racist body I've been assigned. My actions and beliefs are irrelevant. Society has decreed this is who I am.

After the Zimmerman verdict, many white people woke up just like me, realizing that we will be deemed haters whenever we interact with non-whites and something goes wrong — no matter what our motivation or innermost thoughts are.

Most of us didn't grow up this way. Quite the opposite. I was taught never to hate and only to judge people by their actions and not by their color, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Didn't Martin Luther King say we should judge a man by "the content of his character, not by his color of his skin"?

Use of racism to implement an agenda or get one's way, has been building over years. This isn't news to any of you. Anytime you fire someone who is a minority, you must have documentation backing up your non-racist justifications. Even if you have pages and testimony to bolster your decision, you still could be confronted with an unpleasant lawsuit identifying you as a "discriminator."

Even though we are supposed to be a color-blind, post-racial society, groups and individuals force us to think about race all the time. We have become a hyper-racial society. Furthermore, since very few of us want to be labeled with anything as odious as "racist," we will do anything — including keeping incompetents in our employ — to avoid the moniker.

Nevertheless, as careful as many whites are to avoid doing anything that would saddle us with such epithets, time and time again it is thrust upon us with the goal of serving someone else's purpose — regardless how we actually conduct ourselves.

If you don't like your black neighbor because you have a personality clash, you are a racist.

If you complain about a black clerk in a store because she wasn't helpful, you are a racist.

If you oppose affirmative action, you are a racist. Every Black conservative such as Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, David Webb, Deneen Borelli, Roy Innis, Larry Elder, and Justice Clarence Thomas are against affirmative action. Does that make them racists? That would mean Blacks are racists against other Blacks.

If you disagree with a black President's ideology and disapprove of his policies, you most definitely are a racist.

If you are a juror in the Trayvon Martin case and find George Zimmerman not guilty, you must be a racist. Heck, the entire system that acquitted Zimmerman is racist. Those shots were fired not out of self-defense but because of racism. And we know that, because Trayvon was black and Zimmerman white.

Speaking of Justice Clearance Thomas when President George H.W. Bush appointed him to the Supreme Court and he was opposed by Democrat stalwarts like Ted Kennedy, the Democrat Party, and the entire left-wing press (including you Mr. Matthews) I guess that’s proof that they were all racists

Now we have President Obama once again jumping into the fray. Last week he made an appearance at an impromptu press conference to pontificate on racism and stand your ground. As usual he wanted to gin up his base before going on his multi-million dollar vacation to Martha’s Vineyard where he can hob-knob with his million dollar donors.

Obama publicly and personally addressed the Trayvon Martin case for the first time since George Zimmerman was acquitted nearly a week ago, relating his own experiences to the "pain" the black community is feeling and going on to question so-called "stand-your-ground" laws.

The president delivered extensive remarks during a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room. He suggested race may have played a strong role in the case, saying that if a "white male teen" were involved, "both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

He went far beyond his remarks a year ago in which he stirred controversy by saying if he had a son, he'd look like Martin.

"Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago," Obama said.

The president used the highly personal comments to, in his words, put the angst in the black community in "context." And he also appeared to give his support to Attorney General Eric Holder's call earlier in the week for a review of "stand-your-ground" laws.

Here is a segment from Obama’s remarks:

"You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African-American community at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it's important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a -- and a history that -- that doesn't go away. There are very few African-American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.

"There are probably very few African-American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me -- at least before I was a senator. There are very few African-Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.

(Wasn’t it the race hustler Jesse Jackson who once said that while walking at night in a Black neighborhood he would anxiously look over his shoulder until he could get out of the area?)

…

"And, you know, I -- I don't want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it's inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear. The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.”

…

"And for those who -- who resist that idea, that we should think about something like these Stand Your Ground laws, I just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

"Number three -- and this is a long-term project -- we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African-American boys? And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help, who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them, and values them, and is willing to invest in them?

"You know, I'm not naive about the prospects of some grand new federal program. I'm not sure that that's what we're talking about here. But I -- I do recognize that, as president, I've got some convening power. And there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes and figure out, how are we doing a better job helping young African-American men feel that they're a full part of this society and that -- and that they've got pathways and avenues to succeed?

"You know, I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was, obviously, a tragic situation. And we're going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that. And then, finally, I think it's going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching.

"You know, there's been talk about, should we convene a conversation on race? I haven't seen that be particularly productive when, you know, politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have. “

And then there is the poster boy for cognitive dissonance, Juan Williams, who wrote in his recent column “Obama's risky admission -- after Zimmerman case America must do better on race” for FoxNews.com:

“The president's decision to speak out about the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case is an explosive, risky step in an already polarized racial landscape.

The first black president has tried to speak about race before and not had a good response. That's possibly why he said that he's not calling for a "national dialogue" but asking people to do some soul searching at home, at church and among friends.

The president's decision to come out and speak, despite the warnings from his top advisers, reveals how deeply the Martin-Zimmerman case has torn at the nation's long, troubled history of race relations.

The fact is president must have concluded that he had no choice but to speak out or be recorded in the history books as a political no-show on the critical race issues of his day.

President Obama is already under fire for not doing enough on race, for not speaking out about black on black crime in the country, about high black unemployment, about the tragedy of urban education for black kids. Something deep in him must have forced him to speak out this time.

While it won't please his critics that the president spoke at all, it's clear that Mr. Obama is trying to offer a leader's healing prescription for a nation filled with hurt over the Martin-Zimmerman case.

I know I have been hurt in the days since the verdict.

I have been full of sadness over the not-guilty verdict in the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman murder. The lack of justice for a dead teenager and the Martin family is sad, it is tragic.

Yes, the prosecution failed, in my opinion, to make the case beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted with the malice necessary for a conviction on second-degree murder.

Yes, the jury failed to see the need for justice for all.

And, yes, the media failed to be fair.

These failures began before the trial when the special prosecutor in the case, Florida State Attorney Angela Corey, did not convene a grand jury. After the local police failed to arrest or charge Zimmerman the prosecutors were in a rush to satisfy racial activists, the media and political pressure for immediate action.”

Then we have the clamor to rid ourselves of the Stand Your Ground laws from the liberal left-wing media. It should be noted that 30 states have Stand Your Ground Laws and if I read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments correctly this is the business of the states, not the federal government. Take as example a recent article in Salon.com by Katie Halper “Stand your ground” law helps white defendants a lot more than black ones.” In the article Ms. Halper advances her belief that stand your ground benefits whites more than blacks and uses two anecdotal cases to prove her point. She used the cases of Ralph Wald, and Marissa Alexander both of Florida:

“On March 10 of this year, around midnight, Ralph Wald, 70, of Brandon, Fla., got out of bed to get a drink and found Walter Conley, 32, having sex with his wife, Johanna Lynn Flores, 41, in the living room. He immediately went back into his bedroom, grabbed his gun and shot Conley three times. Conley died. Wald claims that he thought Conley was a stranger who had broken in and was raping his wife – despite the fact that Conley lived next door, had been his wife’s roommate and lover, and had his wife’s name tattooed onto his neck and arm. During a 911 call, when the dispatcher asked Wald if the man he shot was dead, Wald responded, “I hope so!” Wald never used the word “rape” in later reports to police, opting instead for “fornicate.” And while the fact that the two were lovers doesn’t imply consent, Flores has never accused Conley of rape — nor do prosecutors buy that that’s what Wald actually thought was happening. They say that Wald, who suffers from erectile dysfunction, killed Conley in a jealous rage. Flores admits that she and Conley had sex regularly before and after her marriage to Wald. While testifying, Wald explained that his erectile dysfunction and his wife’s reluctance to have sex with him made them compatible: “In fact, she would joke a lot with me that we were a perfect couple. She didn’t want to do it, and I couldn’t do it.” On May 30, after deliberating for two hours, a jury found Wald not guilty. After the verdict was announced, Wald continued to show no remorse: “If the same thing happened again, I would do the same thing.”

…

“On Aug. 1, 2010, Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of three, with a master’s degree and no criminal record, was working for a payroll software company in Jacksonville. She was estranged from her abusive husband, Rico Gray, and had a restraining order against him. Thinking he was not at home, she went to their former house to get some belongings. The two got into an argument. Alexander says that Gray threatened her and she feared for her life. Gray corroborates Alexander’s story: “I was in a rage. I called her a whore and bitch and I told her if I can’t have you, nobody going to have you,” he said, in a deposition. When Alexander retreated into the bathroom, Gray tried to break the door. She ran into the garage, but couldn’t leave because it was locked. She came back, he said, with a registered gun, which she legally owned, and yelled at him to leave. Gray recalls, “I told her I ain’t going nowhere, and so I started walking toward her. I was cursing and all that and she shot in the air.” Even Gray understands why Alexander fired the warning shot: “If my kids wouldn’t have been there, I probably would have put my hand on her. Probably hit her. I got five baby mommas and I put my hands on every last one of them, except for one … I honestly think she just didn’t want me to put my hands on her anymore so she did what she feel like she have to do to make sure she wouldn’t get hurt, you know. You know, she did what she had to do.” And Gray admits Alexander was acting in self-defense, intending to scare and stop but not harm him: “The gun was never actually pointed at me. The fact is, you know she never been violent toward me. I was always the one starting it.” Ultimately nobody was hurt. Nobody died. On May 12, 2012, it took a jury 12 minutes to find Alexander guilty of aggravated assault. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Both defendants used the defense of “stand your ground,” a Florida law that holds that a person has “no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.” The man who shot his wife’s lover to death was successful and walks free. The woman who shot at a wall to scare an abusive husband failed and sits in jail.”

It must be pointed out that both cases were prosecuted by Angela Cory’s State Attorney’s Office. I believe the case against Ms. Alexander was a gross miscarriage of justice perpetrated once again by Angela Cory, a woman who should be disbarred. I only hope she can get a good attorney to work her appeal.

However, two antidotal cases do not make a case for overturning stand your ground in 30 states and it won’t happen. What we need are better prosecutors. The stand your ground laws go hand in hand with the Castle Laws.

According to Patrick Howley writing in the Daily Caller “Blacks benefit from Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ law at disproportionate rate.”:

“One hundred thirty three people in the state of Florida have used a “Stand Your Ground” defense. Of these claims, 73 were considered “justified” (55 percent), while 39 resulted in criminal convictions and 21 cases are still pending.

Forty four African Americans in the state of Florida have claimed a “Stand Your Ground” defense. Of these claims, 24 were considered “justified” (55 percent), while 11 resulted in convictions and nine cases are still pending.

Of the 76 white people who have used the defense, 40 were considered “justified” (less than 53 percent), while 25 were convicted and 11 cases are still pending.

Ten Hispanics have used the defense, seven of them successfully, according to the database, which included George Zimmerman as a “Stand Your Ground” defendant.

Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” cases have resulted in 78 white victims against 40 black victims, including Martin, and 10 Hispanic victims.

“For a defense attorney, it (stand your ground) is an excellent tool. Even if your client is not found legal under stand your ground, it helps you flesh out the issues as the case proceeds to trial. It’s an opportunity to push forward with that position while also forcing the state to show their hand,” said defense attorney Chuck Hobbs, whose 20-year-old African-American client Earl Jackson was found not guilty of murder but was convicted on lesser charges after a 2009 gang shootout in a Tallahassee parking lot that left an innocent bystander dead.

Then-19-year-old African American Tony Hayward of Palm Beach County also benefited from the “Stand Your Ground” defense when he was acquitted in the shooting death of 22-year old Jyron Miles.

“Besides the shooter’s word and a grainy surveillance video, jurors had little to go on when deciding if Tony Hayward was defending his life when he shot and killed Jyron Miles, 22. Hayward, then 19, and his father were delivering newspapers when Miles appeared at about 3 a.m., according to newspaper reports. They said Miles aggressively demanded ‘is you straight?’ a phrase sometimes used to see if someone has drugs,” according to the Tampa Bay Times database. “The father and son said Miles then reached for what they thought was a gun, so the teen fired. The video did not show whether Miles had a gun, but police did not find one when they arrived…At his second trial in early 2011, Hayward was acquitted. His public defender argued that Hayward was standing his ground during the confrontation.”

The best known African American associated with Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law is Marissa Alexander, who was prevented from invoking the law after firing a warning shot to protect herself from her abusive ex-husband. Alexander, who had no prior criminal record, was sentenced to 20 years in prison, and her case has become an important cause for supporters of the law. Alexander was prosecuted by Angela Corey, the same state attorney who lost the Zimmerman case.”

As John Adams stated in his defense of the British Soldiers accused of murder in the Boston Massacre; “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

I wonder if the race industry has any idea what they are clamoring for by restricting the claim of self-defense. Black-on-black crime is the overwhelming source of crime against blacks in America. If the Zimmerman protesters have their way and a black intruder breaks into the home of a black family and is shot dead by the homeowner, the homeowner will more likely be the criminal on trial than the perp, as we have seen in the Ron Dixon case in Brooklyn, where a Jamaican family man killed an intruder (whose race isn't clear in the reports) and was shockingly sentenced to jail for illegally possessing a gun.

We will be cutting off our self-defense noses to spite our racial anger faces.  This all stems from intense vitriol for past sins most of us had nothing to do with and would never condone.  The sins of America's past are being visited upon America's present and future regardless of the sensibility of doing so.  My heart breaks that slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, the KKK, lynching, and discrimination ever existed. Every reasonable human being feels this way. But this continued pay back has to stop.

This is not exclusive to race. LGBT activists have hijacked the black plight for their own purposes. LGBT students are given special consideration in the college application process to right the wrongs visited upon previous generations of homosexuals. If you dislike a person who happens to be gay, you are homophobic. If you disapprove of redefining marriage, you are homophobic. If the thought of same-sex sexual conduct makes you feel uncomfortable, you are homophobic. If you think AIDS is a gay disease brought on by lifestyle, you are homophobic. If you fire anyone who is gay, you are homophobic.

If a gay man tries to rape a straight man and the straight man accidentally kills the gay man while trying to ward off the rape, he must be homophobic. There is no room for self-defense if the perp-turned-victim is gay and the accused is not. (See the case of Steven Nary.)

And, as we have seen in the media's reaction to the Zimmerman case, for many, there is no room for self-defense if the puncher-turned-victim is black and the accused is white.

Obama put us on notice that we'd better do some "soul-searching" because as president he has "convening power" to push forward some "grand new federal programs."

Wow, 'wait till your daddy Obama gets back from Martha’s Vineyard kids — there's gonna be some whoop-ass if you don't straighten it out.' Obama, the Daddy that 73% of the Rachel Jeantel demographic never had, is going after those downright mean white oppressor bullies. The ones who keep putting all the black young males in prison for wearing hoodies and eating skittles. The ones who "paint African-American boys with a broad brush" and who tend to see them as "more violent."

Obama the Marxist never strays too far from the dialectic. We have to put Martin's death in "context." What context Obama doesn't say, but we can assume it's all about slavery and its economic origins. Why else were there communist protesters at the Justice for Trayvon rallies with signs reading Racism is a By-Product of Capitalism?

Obama and his dupes, including Martin's father, Tracy, have been repeating the "if Trayvon was [sic] white" talking point ever since the verdict came down. Translation: whites are the privileged class, nobody bothers them. Or in the words of Marx who indeed linked slavery to white capitalist exploiters of blacks: "In fact, the veiled slavery of the wage-laborers in Europe needed the unqualified slavery of the New World as its pedestal. Capital comes dripping from head to toe, from every pore, with blood and dirt "

Obama may be fooling the black community with his "Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago" but like everything else in the Marxist world, black interests are only a means to an end to capitalism.

While Obama continues to exploit blacks for his own purposes, we can be sure he'll act like the wise chief ruling over a human kindergarten telling us what to do and to like it or else.

Obama said in his press conference:

“Ask yourself am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can; am I judging people, as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.”

This from the titular head of the Democrat Party, which has turned Martin Luther King's challenge about color and character upside down. Indeed, for Obama and the Left, color trumps character.

Obama closed his remarks saying, "Those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions." Seriously, that is what this consummate hypocrite said. Of course Obama has risen from a "community organizer" to the office of President of the United States, solely by invoking the politics of disparity, fomenting class, race, sex and religious division across the nation — pure Alinsky. Democrats rely on this "divide and conquer" strategy in every campaign, and Obama politicized the Zimmerman/Martin case for precisely that reason during his 2012 reelection campaign.

Obama did feign disdain for the protests incited by Al Sharpton and other race-bait hustlers, saying, "If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin." Fact is, Obama's remarks dishonor what happened to Martin, because they divert attention from the real tragedy of cultural entropy and epidemic violence in predominately black communities.

Race hustlers with their double standards across the nation are calling for a civil rights investigation into Zimmerman's motives for shooting Martin. However, during Zimmerman's trial, it was clear that none of his actions were motivated by race. However, Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with Martin just prior to the altercation, testified that Martin described Zimmerman as a "creepy-ass white cracker." Seems a more pertinent question would be: Was Martin's assault on Zimmerman racially motivated?

Oh, and despite all the spin Obama is generating around this case, we won't get distracted from all his other scandals and policy fails!

As the Black economists Thomas Sowell stated:

“If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today.”

Religious Liberty in the Administrative State

“No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship, or religious sentiments, in the said territories.

Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” The Northwest Ordinance, 1787.

The Northwest Ordinance (formally An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States, North-West of the River Ohio, and also known as the Freedom Ordinance or "The Ordinance of 1787") was an act of the Congress of the Confederation of the United States, passed July 13, 1787. The primary effect of the ordinance was the creation of the Northwest Territory as the first organized territory of the United States out of the region south of the Great Lakes, north and west of the Ohio River, and east of the Mississippi River.

On August 7, 1789, President George Washington signed the Northwest Ordinance of 1789 into law after the newly created U.S. Congress reaffirmed the Ordinance with slight modifications under the Constitution. The Ordinance purported to be not merely legislation that could later be amended by Congress, but rather "the following articles shall be considered as Articles of compact between the original States and the people and states in the said territory, and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent.

Arguably the single most important piece of legislation passed by members of the earlier Continental Congresses other than the Declaration of Independence, it established the precedent by which the federal government would be sovereign and expand westward across North America with the admission of new states, rather than with the expansion of existing states and their established sovereignty under the Articles of Confederation. It is the most important legislation that Congress has passed with regard to American public domain lands. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the authority of the Northwest Ordinance of 1789 within the applicable Northwest Territory as constitutional in Strader v. Graham, 51 U.S. 82, 96, 97 (1851), but did not extend the Ordinance to cover the respective states once they were admitted to the Union.

The prohibition of slavery in the territory had the practical effect of establishing the Ohio River as the boundary between free and slave territory in the region between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River. This division helped set the stage for national competition over admitting free and slave states, the basis of a critical question in American politics in the 19th century until the Civil War.

The Natural Rights provisions of the ordinance foreshadowed the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Many of the concepts and guarantees of the Ordinance of 1787 were incorporated in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In the Northwest Territory, various legal and property rights were enshrined, religious tolerance was proclaimed, and it was enunciated that since "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." The right of habeas corpus was written into the charter, as was freedom of religious worship and bans on excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. Trial by jury and a ban on ex post facto laws were also rights granted.

The Northwest Ordinance was a clear, unambiguous expression of the beliefs of our Founders. There could be no doubt that this new Congress believed that education and morality should go hand in hand and that as long as the religious practices of one did not violate the social compact or encourage criminal acts such as human sacrifice or refusal to support the common defense of the nation. Religion was not only to be tolerated, it was to be encouraged.

In his 1781 Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII: Manners Thomas Jefferson said:

“With the morals of the people, their industry also is destroyed. For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labour. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.--But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every one’s mind. I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation.”

Here Jefferson is referring the immorality of slavery and the wrath of God that will descend on those who support this policy. Jefferson made no bones in referring to God, as he did in the Declaration four times, and warning that an immoral nation devoid of God would no doubt perish.

In his 1796 Farewell Address to the nation George Washington stated:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. ’Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free Government. Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric.”

Washington, however, offered on caveat to absolute religious freedom in his September, 1789 letter to the Annual Meeting of Quakers when he gently reminded them of their obligation to support the common defense. In his letter Washington stated:

“Government being, among other purposes, instituted to protect the persons and consciences of men from oppression, it certainly is the duty of rulers, not only to abstain from it themselves, but, according to their stations, to prevent it in others.

The liberty enjoyed by the people of these states of worshiping Almighty God agreeably to their consciences, is not only among the choicest of their blessings, but also of their rights. While men perform their social duties faithfully, they do all that society or the state can with propriety demand or expect; and remain responsible only to their Maker for their religion, or modes of faith, which they may prefer or profess.

Your principles and conduct are well known to me; and it is doing the people called Quakers no more than justice to say, that (except their declining to share with others the burden of the common defense) there is no denomination among us, who are more exemplary and useful citizens.

I assure you very explicitly, that in my opinion the conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness; and it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be as extensively accommodated to them, as a due regard to the protection and essential interests of the nation may justify and permit.”

Once again we see how our Founders viewed the value of religion in the life of the nation and its schools.

Even the Wilsonian Progressives believed in the value of religion and morality in our national affairs and government policies. They believed in criminal and civil laws that would protect one citizen from the actions of another. This changed with the advent of the Post 1960s Progressives when they embarked on a campaign of anything goes sexual liberation and a complete intolerance for religious institutions.

Post-1960s Progressivism has steadily eroded religious liberty and the freedom of association in America. Measures such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and many anti-discrimination laws express a new understanding of rights that rejects the Founders’ view of religious liberty and the freedom of private associations to govern themselves. Recent Progressivism follows the early Progressive belief that effective freedom requires government to redistribute resources in order to provide equal access to the goods that promote mental development and that make life comfortable. This redistributive agenda is combined with a new emphasis on the empowerment of victim groups, sexual liberation, and an aversion to traditional Christianity and Judaism that requires government intervention in the internal affairs of private organizations. Religious liberty today is divorced from the freedom of association and the free exercise of religion, which the Founders understood to be essential for a free society.

The Founders’ conception of religious liberty was anchored in the belief that the natural right of liberty—and religious liberty—meant not only that all persons may worship God in the way each thinks best, but also that all are permitted to follow what they believe to be God’s laws in their daily life outside of church. The Founders understood, however, that actions based on religion are limited by the purpose of the social compact—the security of rights. No one has a right to disturb the public peace, to obstruct others in their religious worship, or to incite crimes.

While the Founders believed that religion, especially Christianity, is helpful to the cause of liberty because it encourages the virtues necessary for the survival of a free society, they held that government involvement in religious organizations must be limited by the very purpose of government: to secure the equal natural rights of citizens to life, liberty, and property. Denial of the rights to religious liberty and to freedom of association violates the right to liberty.

In practice, liberty—including religious liberty—means that individuals are free to organize and conduct their affairs as they see fit through self-governing private associations. Contrary to today’s practice, the Founders understood that churches, businesses, and other private associations had the right to determine all internal policies, including rules for membership, employment, and conduct, free from government interference. As long as these entities do not harm the rights to life, liberty, or property, they should be free to manage their internal affairs.

After 1965, Progressives adopted a new attitude towards religion and private associations, viewing both as threats to effective or positive freedom. The redistributive agenda of early Progressivism required the violation of the natural right to property, but in general the early Progressives supported the traditional family and liberal Christianity. Post-1965 Progressivism (in the interest of sexual liberation) explicitly attacks Christianity and rejects the older morality which supported the traditional family.

One of the first steps along this road to the rejection of morality in our public education system was the 1963 Supreme Court case of Abington v. Schempp. This was a case in which the Court decided 8–1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp, and declared school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools in the United States to be unconstitutional. Associate Justice William Brennan wrote in his concurring opinion:

“[I]t is implicit in the history and character of American public education that the public schools serve a uniquely public function: the training of American citizens in an atmosphere free of parochial, divisive, or separatist influences of any sort. Attendance at the public schools has never been compulsory. [The Constitution reserves] such a choice to the individual parent. The choice which is thus preserved is between a public secular education with its uniquely democratic values, and some form of private or sectarian education, which offers values of its own.”

Not only did this decision fly in the face of the Northwest Ordinance and the intent of the Founders it set the stage for most of the tyrannical laws against religious beliefs we live with today. Used as stare deices for lower courts to follow in subsequent decisions involving the free practice of religion in public schools and the public square such as; banning the singing of Christmas Carols, not allowing Christmas trees on public property, punishing students for wishing a fellow student a “Merry Christmas” or exchanging a Christmas Card. This is tyranny by a minority group that views itself as victims as they feel offended by these practices — practices that do them no harm. This was not the intent of the Founders when speaking of religious tolerance.

Another landmark case along the road to our throwing organized religion’s moral convictions and tenants was the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas, decided by a 6-3 vote of the Court.

In this case the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in thirteen other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory. The Court overturned its previous ruling on the same issue in the 1986 case Bowers v. Hardwick, where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute and did not find a constitutional protection of sexual privacy.

Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly. The Court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized sodomy between consenting adults acting in private, whatever the sex of the participants.

In this case Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority:

“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”

It seems that the Court uses the 14^th Amendment time and time again to override the 10^th Amendment

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissent, which Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Scalia objected to the Court's decision to revisit Bowers, pointing out many decisions from lower courts that relied on Bowers that might now need to be reconsidered. He noted that the same rationale used to overturn Bowers could have been used to overturn Roe v. Wade, which the Justices in the majority in Lawrence had recently upheld in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Scalia also criticized the majority opinion for failing to give the same respect to stare decisis that three of those in the majority had insisted on in Casey.

Scalia wrote that if the court was not prepared to validate laws based on moral choices as it had done in Bowers, state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity would not prove sustainable.

He wrote that:

“Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. The Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.”

He cited the majority opinion's concern that the criminalization of sodomy could be the basis for discrimination against homosexuals as evidence that the majority ignored the views of most Americans:

“So imbued is the Court with the law profession's anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously "mainstream"; that in most States what the Court calls "discrimination" against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal.”

He continued: "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means." The majority's "invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right'", he wrote, showed it was "impatient of democratic change."

The case attracted much public attention, and a large number of amici curiae ("friends of the court") briefs were filed. Its outcome was celebrated by gay rights advocates, who hoped that further legal advances might result as a consequence. And it did!

Now we have another special victim group demanding a redistribution of resources and special protection under the color of law. If a religious institution or secular organizations like the Boy Scouts they are taken to court by the Gay Rights activists demanding their rights to be a part of the organization even if they are not welcomed. If a business like the photographer in New Mexico refuses to photograph a same sex wedding the photographer is fined $6,637.97. What if a Gay photographer would only photograph same sex commitment ceremonies? Would they suffer the same government sanctions. I doubt it. In this case Gay Rights trump religious rights.

To implement the new view of freedom from Christianity and moral self-restraint, government involves itself ever more pervasively in the internal affairs of churches and businesses. Since these private associations all have employees, they are thus subject to anti-discrimination provisions that actively promote affirmative action policies geared toward sexual liberation and the redistribution of resources to supposed victim groups. Private associations are not allowed to govern themselves, and businesses are often prohibited from treating religion as a positive good. Religious liberty is increasingly confined to the freedom to worship. The natural right to liberty and the specific application of that right as religious liberty and the freedom of association are denied by the contemporary Progressive view of religious liberty.

Is Obama Desperate for Money?

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." — James Madison

After Obama’s comments on entrepreneurs owing their success to government in Roanoke Virginia last week, comments that have turned on him and caused his supporters to spin the comments all week, he has made another gaffe. This one, however, has not covered in the mainstream media for obvious reasons. I am 100% sure had it been George Bush it would have been all over ABC, NBC, and CBS.

In Portland, Oregon Obama attended another of his numerous fund raisers hosted by Terrance Bean, a multi-millionaire bundler. It was a great event for Obama and he enthusiastically thanked Bean for his efforts and contributions to the cause. The only thing not mentioned is that Terrance Bean is known as the king of Gay porn.

President Barack Obama publicly thanked a man the New York Post called a “gay-porn kingpin” at an Oregon fundraiser on Tuesday, according to the Weekly Standard.

While speaking at a Portland campaign fundraiser, Obama thanked Terry Bean for organizing the event.

“I want to thank someone who put so much work into this event, Terry Bean," Obama said as the crowd began to cheer, according to the Weekly Standard. "Give Terry a big round of applause.”

But to a 2008 New York Post article, Bean is a "gay-porn kingpin” and a bundler who raised $50,000 to $100,000 for Obama and “once controlled the biggest producer of gay porn in America."

The Post said, "Bean, the first gay on Sen. Obama's National Finance Committee, is the sole trustee of the Charles M. Holmes Foundation, which owned Falcon Studios, Jock Studios, and Mustang Studios, the producers of about $10 million worth of all-male pornography a year."

The Post also reported that in 2002, Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongowski returned a $15,000 contribution from Conwest to avoid the "taint" of the porn connection.

Bean told the paper back then, "I asked the company to donate, and they did. To avoid the appearance of anything, he [Kulongowski] returned it."

Once again we see Obama doing anything possible to add to his campaign coffers. It not the Gay issue, but a Gay porn king!

There is another video showing photos with Obama, Bean, Michelle, Biden and other Obama Whitehouse staffers. If you watch the video turn the music down as it was made by a person attempting to glamorize Bean and his relationship with Obama.

I am sure this video is an embarrassment to Barack and Michelle and if it isn’t it should be. The photos show Barack and Michelle siting around the table with Bean and seeming to enjoy his company. I am also sure had this been George Bush or Mitt Romney the mainstream media would have been all over it. Or perhaps Barack and Michelle get turned on by watching Gay porn.

This is just one more example of many of how corrupt the left is.

Eat More Chicken

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” — Leviticus 20:13, 1769 Oxford King James Bible.

According to the Wall Street Journal the Muppets are severing their connection with the fast food chicken chain Chick-fil-A.:

“The Jim Henson Company, the force behind the Muppets, recently announced that it’s cutting ties with Chick-fil-A because of the fast-food chain’s stance against same-sex marriage. The company posted this note on its Facebook page: “The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years and we have notified Chick-fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors. Lisa Henson, our CEO is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to GLAAD.”

The fact that Chick-fil-A is a company that espouses Christian values is no secret. The fact that its 1,600 fast-food chicken restaurants across the country are closed on Sundays has long been testament to that.

CNN reported on July 19^th that the comments of company President Dan Cathy about gay marriage to Baptist Press on July 16^th have ignited a social media wildfire:

"Guilty as charged," Cathy said when asked about his company's support of the traditional family unit as opposed to gay marriage.

"We are very much supportive of the family - the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that," Cathy is quoted as saying.

Strong feelings of support and disagreement have followed, making Chick-fil-A the top Google trend on Thursday morning as the company's Facebook and Twitter pages were burning up with arguments.

"Hate mongers! Never again! Not another $ from me," Duke Richards wrote on Facebook.

"Goodbye Chikkk-fil-a! [Sic] your food was delicious, but I can no longer eat nuggets filled with hate!" read a post by Blake Brown.

……

But the support for the company was just as vehement.

"Just wanted to say I'm proud that you stand firm in your beliefs. You knew the risks, and still took the plunge. May God bless this company with abundance. Never back down!" said a Facebook post from David Jones.

"Thank you for standing up for what you believe. The truth is not hate. It's just the truth," wrote Sharon R Boyd.

"I love the values that this restaurant stands for and will support it every dang chance I get! Pay no attention to the morons spewing hate!" read a post from Raymond Joy.”

Dan Cathy oversees one of the country's most successful businesses. As president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, Cathy leads a business with 1,608 restaurants that had sales of more than $4 billion dollars last year. They sell chicken and train employees to focus on values rooted in the Bible.

His father, S. Truett Cathy started the business in 1946, when he and his brother, Ben, opened an Atlanta diner known as The Dwarf Grill (later renamed The Dwarf House). In 1967, his father opened the first Chick-fil-A restaurant in Atlanta. Today, Chick-fil-A is the second largest quick-service chicken restaurant chain in the United States based on annual system-wide sales.

Dan Cathy's success has not erased the biblical values he learned as a child in a Baptist church. He is a warm, common man who is deeply committed to being a faithful Christian witness. And he is fully involved in New Hope Baptist Church in Fayetteville, Ga. He drives Chick-fil-A's efforts to provide genuine hospitality, ensuring that customers have an exceptional dining experience in a Chick-fil-A restaurant. Based on Matthew 5:41, Cathy is on a mission to provide customers with "second-mile" service — exceeding even the highest expectations of a typical fast-food restaurant. The Baptist Press reported:

“We don't claim to be a Christian business," Cathy told the Biblical Recorder in a recent visit to North Carolina. He attended a business leadership conference many years ago where he heard Christian businessman Fred Roach say, "There is no such thing as a Christian business."

"That got my attention," Cathy said. Roach went on to say, "Christ never died for a corporation. He died for you and me."

"In that spirit ... [Christianity] is about a personal relationship. Companies are not lost or saved, but certainly individuals are," Cathy added.

"But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles. So that is what we claim to be. [We are] based on biblical principles, asking God and pleading with God to give us wisdom on decisions we make about people and the programs and partnerships we have. And He has blessed us."

Rather than leading from his corporate office in Atlanta, Cathy chooses to spend the majority of his time traveling to the chain's growing family of restaurants and interacting with Chick-fil-A's committed team members. His actions stem from a belief that working in the field provides a clearer understanding of the needs of Chick-fil-A customers. Leading from the front line also enables him personally to convey his servant spirit to the chain's 61,000-plus employees.

Cathy believes strongly that Christians are missionaries in the workplace. "Jesus had a lot of things to say about people who work and live in the business community," he said. His goal in the workplace is "to take biblical truth and put skin on it. ... We're talking about how our performance in the workplace should be the focus of how we build respect, rapport and relationships with others that opens the gateway to interest people in knowing God.

"All throughout the New Testament there is an evangelism strategy related to our performance in the workplace. ... Our work should be an act of worship. Our work should be our mission field. As long as we are stateside, let's don't think we have to go on mission trips by getting a passport. ... If you're obedient to God you are going to be evangelistic in the quality of the work you do, using that as a portal to share [Christ]," he said.”

In yet another example of progressives attempting to curtail the rights of those they do not agree with Boston mayor, Thomas Menino, wants to ban the opening of any new Chick-fil-A restaurants. The Los Angeles Times reports:

“Also not a fan of Chick-fil-A’s position: Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. In an interview with the Boston Herald, Menino vowed to block the chain from opening up shop in his city, promising to make it extremely difficult for the company to procure the required licenses.

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston,” Menino told the publication. “You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.”

Nearly 4,000 people have signed a pledge to boycott Chick-fil-A.”

The Times report continues:

“But Chick-fil-A has its share of supporters, including Mike Huckabee. On his Facebook page this weekend, the former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate wrote that he has “been incensed at the vitriolic assaults on the Chick-fil-A company.”

He called the Cathy clan “a wonderful Christian family who are committed to operating the company with Biblical principles and whose story is the true American success story” – one “that is being smeared by vicious hate speech and intolerant bigotry from the left.”

Huckabee declared Aug. 1 “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.”

“Too often, those on the left make corporate statements to show support for same sex marriage, abortion, or profanity, but if Christians affirm traditional values, we're considered homophobic, fundamentalists, hate-mongers, and intolerant,” Huckabee wrote.

On Thursday, Chick-fil-A said in a statement that it would “leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena” and refrain from “proactively being engaged in the dialogue” on the subject.”

The majority of people in the United States believe marriage is between a man and a women. This has been proven in California, Oregon, Maine, and North Carolina where anti-gay marriage initiatives have been passed with the approval of the voters. It is only in states where the legislature and governor’s mansion is dominated by Democrats that pro-gay marriage laws have been enacted.

In North Carolina, the latest state to outlaw gay marriage, the voters approved Amendment One by 61%. Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council — a conservative Christian organization — released a statement applauding the vote.

“We applaud North Carolina voters for joining voters in 31 other states upholding the historic and natural definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman” the statement said. “At every opportunity, the American people have demonstrated a deep appreciation for the unique benefits that marriage between a man and a woman brings to families and society. They recognize that marriage is the only kind of union that results in natural procreation and keeps a mother and father together to raise the children produced by their union.”

North Carolina had previously been the only Southern state that did not have a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Some 29 states already have statutes or constitutional amendments outlawing same-sex marriage. Additionally, in Hawaii, the state legislature has the power to define marriage, though the state does not currently explicitly ban same-sex marriage. North Carolina will now become the 30th state with such a law. Same sex marriage is currently legal in six states, plus Washington, D.C.

For his statement, Cathy is accused of potentially offending his customers (Washington Post) and of not liking "gay people" (Ed Helms). Moreover, Helms has been joined by Jane Lynch, Deepak Chopra, Miley Cyrus, Lindsay Lohan, and the Kardashians in announcing a boycott of Chick-fil-A.

It appears Cathy's crime isn't so much that he holds the convictions he holds, but that he has the courage to voice them.

As Jena McGregor asserted in her Washington Post column:

“On the one hand, you could argue leaders of businesses, particularly private, family-owned ones, should be able to speak their minds. But when a business leader elects to take a public and vocal position on a hot-button political issue in an election year, he or she also risks losing the support of many of its customers.”

Note that McGregor's line of thinking doesn't cross over for businesses like Office Depot, which shares its convictions with every customer via signs in their stores that read, "Be Brave," along with the tagline, "We Support Bravery."

For the record, the signs are not referencing Office Depot's support of the military, but of Lady GaGa's "Born This Way Foundation" — a foundation supporting same-sex "marriage" and which Office Depot has guaranteed a $1-million donation.

Don't hold your breath for a Washington Post column criticizing Office Depot for this anytime soon. And don't expect to hear anything negative from the celebrities who were so quick to criticize Cathy for possessing the courage of his convictions.

It's all part of the duplicity we've watched the progressive left demonstrate for decades, but it's also part of a larger, more recent phenomenon that should trouble every American. Those on the left are insisting that those in business have no right to have convictions of their own if they don't mirror what the left believes. This is the tyranny of political correctness. If you do not believe as I then we will sanction you.

What Cathy is experiencing is the tip of the iceberg. Right now, people are in court and being severely fined simply because they wish to exercise their faith convictions in how they run their businesses. Elane Photography is in court because the co-owner of the small New Mexico photo company couldn't in good conscience user her artistic skills to beautify a same-sex "commitment" ceremony. Hercules Industries is in court in Colorado because the Obama administration wants to force its owners to abandon their faith convictions when it comes to providing health insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. Hands On Originals, a T-shirt company in Kentucky, has been dragged before a human rights commission because it wouldn't print T-shirts to promote a "gay pride" festival. The list goes on and on.

Never mind that none of these events has caused anyone a problem in getting the goods or services he or she wanted. The goal is strictly to punish those who won't go along and approve of leftist orthodoxy.

Just ask the Susan G. Komen Foundation, after it incurred the wrath of Planned Parenthood for simply saying that it wouldn't fund the abortion giant anymore with a small amount of grant money to which Planned Parenthood has absolutely no right. Of course, that didn't stop the liberal politicians whose campaigns Planned Parenthood supports from demanding that Komen bow to the abortion agenda.

Sadly, Planned Parenthood at least partially succeeded in bringing about a concession from the Komen Foundation. Let's hope Dan Cathy continues to stand strong and resist whatever pressures are wrongfully applied to him for staying true to his convictions. He has a great record of charity and community service to millions that people should not ignore just because a few on the left put their social agenda above all else.

We are living an America dominated by the tyranny of factions. No business or person should be punished by government for adhering to their beliefs as long as those beliefs do not translate to actions that adversely affect the rights of others. This goes for Chick-fil-A, Office Depot, and Elane Photography. Chick-fil-A is not refusing service to people who do not believe as their president nor is Office Depot refusing service to me because I do not agree with their slogan or involvement in LGBT issues. (I shop for my office supplies at Staples because I like the service there). As the owner of a small photography business I would not sanction a same sex marriage ceremony with my camera. People have a right to shop and eat where they wish and government has no right to interfere with their choice, Boston mayor, Thomas Menino included.

I have never eaten at a Chick-fil-A restaurant but I surely intend to do so, and soon.

Barack Obama, Der Führer

"Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion" — Friedrich Hayek

Yesterday President Barack Obama came out of the closet with his endorsement of Gay marriage. This was after the good people of North Carolina joined 29 other states with a ban on Gay marriage The North Carolina ban was a constitutional amendment that passed with an overwhelming majority of 60 percent.

It did not take long for Obama to come out of the closet and announce his evolved support for Gay marriage. Declaring what everyone with a functioning brain has known all along — namely that President Barack Obama supports same-sex marriage but hasn't had the political integrity to admit as much until now — the commander-in-chief of the nation's armed forces told ABC News that:

“When I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."

Yes, he said that our military is out there fighting on his behalf. I am sure this statement was not cleared by his staff and he did not have a teleprompter during the interview. This was Obama’s off the cuff remark that surely expressed his narcissistic self.

Funny, I thought that commissioned officers swore to defend the Constitution of the United States before saying they would obey the orders of the President:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)”

FDR, for all his ego, would never have said that soldiers in World War II were fighting on his behalf. Neither would Truman, Ike, JFK, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or even Carter and Clinton (although Clinton might have thought it.

Much has been made of Obama’s support of Gay marriage, but little has made the mainstream media of his “fight for me” comment and I am sure it will die a quick death at CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the left-wing press.

The death of 87-year-old Reichspräsident Paul von Hindenburg on August 2, 1934 removed the final obstacle to Adolf Hitler obtaining absolute power over Germany. Even before Hindenburg's death, Hitler's cabinet had enacted a law combining the offices of Chancellor (the head of government) and President (the head of state); Adolf Hitler would henceforth be known as Führer und Reichskanzler (Leader and Chancellor) and was both head of state and commander in chief of the armed forces. The day of the President's death, the cabinet ordered a plebiscite for August 19 for the German people to approve the combination of the two offices.

The oath was the initiative of the Defense Minister General Werner von Blomberg and that of the Ministeramt chief General Walther von Reichenau, the entire military took an oath of personal loyalty to Hitler, who was most surprised at the offer; the popular view that Hitler imposed the oath on the military is false. The intention of Blomberg and Reichenau in having the military swear an oath to Hitler was to create a personal special bond between Hitler and the military, which was intended to tie Hitler more tightly towards the military and away from the NSDAP (Blomberg later admitted that he did not think through the full implications of the oath at the time).

Germany's voters went to the polls and 89.9% voted their approval for Hitler to assume complete power over Germany. The following day, August 20, 1934, the cabinet decreed the "Law On The Allegiance of Civil Servants and Soldiers of the Armed Forces". (Gesetz über die Vereidigung der Beamten und der Soldaten der Wehrmacht), which superseded the original oaths. Prior to the decree, both members of the armed forces and civil servants had sworn loyalty to "the People and the Fatherland" (Volk und Vaterland); civil servants had additionally sworn to uphold the constitution and laws of Germany.

The new law decreed that instead, both members of the armed forces and civil servants would swear loyalty to Adolf Hitler.

The mandatory oath, initiated on August 2, 1934, and sworn by all soldiers stated:

„Ich schwöre bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, daß ich dem Führer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit für diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen."

„I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath." [Source: Wikipedia]

This oath presented many problems for the German officer corps, especially for those opposed Hitler using the German Army for his exterminations in Poland and Russia. Taking the oath seriously the General Staff were loath to challenge Hitler’s policies for fear of arrest and execution.

So now we have our President stating that the armed forces of the United States are fighting for him, not the Constitution. How narcissistic can this man get? We all know how he takes credit for the accomplishments of others with his constant use of the personal pronouns “I” and “Me” in every speech or statement he utters. We also know how he avoids taking responsibility for things that go wrong like Solyndra and his shovel ready jobs program.

With his statement on Gay marriage Obama will draw support from the LGBT community and the liberal press, but I doubt much will be made of his comment on how the armed forces fight for him, our new Führer. Hail Obama!