Ted Cruz: ‘Religious Liberty’s Never Been More Under Assault’ in America

Mediaite.com:

Ted Cruz spoke at Liberty University today and talked at some length about how big the threat against religious freedom is in the United States. He railed against the IRS and spoke up in support of Hobby Lobby, declaring that “religious liberty’s never been more under assault.”
\
Cruz brought up an Air Force chaplain who got in trouble for saying there are no atheists in foxholes. Cruz laughingly asked if it’s not supposed to be the job of a chaplain “to be insensitive to atheists.”

He railed against the government forcing groups like Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor to “violate their religious beliefs,” which he found especially ironic because of how Pilgrims came to the U.S. to begin with to flee religious persecution. He told the audience that there needs to be a call to action where people of faith should “stand and speak, no matter what the consequence.”

RELATED:  Kindergartner Allegedly Told to Stop Praying at Lunch

Politiks As Usual: In The News 3/30/14

Hollywood, Leave My Childhood Alone: A Guide to What You Can Maim

What Happens When The Facts Don’t Fit The Progressive Script?

Homofascists Turn Their "Gay" Guns On Mississippi

Moviegoers Flood 'Noah' With $44 Million

A Whole Lotta Democratic Corruption Going On

Politico's Dylan Byers: MSNBC in Freefall

How Unborn Babies Become 'Clinical Waste'

Hundreds of Children Abandoned by Illegals Heading into US

NYT Frets as GOP States Burden Blacks Based on 'Unfounded' Vote Fraud Fear

It Has Begun: Connecticut Raises Minimum Wage to $10.10

7 Ways Noah Turns the Bible Upside Down 

Harry Reid Will Refund Campaign For Gifts

Maryland, Carroll County Commissioner Violates Federal Judge’s Order, Mentions Jesus at Meeting

HotAir.com:

Can a public official mention Jesus at an official meeting? According to a federal judge in Maryland, the answer is no. According to Carroll County commissioner Robin Frazier, it’s yes — and she’s willing to go to jail to defend what she sees is her right to free speech and religious expression:

“Out of respect for my colleagues — I’m not sure how strongly they feel about it. I’m willing to go to jail over it,” Frazier said during the meeting, referring to Jesus Christ twice despite the ruling.

“(Let) the Lord Jesus Christ to admit me to render these deserved thanks and praises for thy manifold mercies extended toward me. Let thy blessings guide this day, and forever, through Jesus Christ and his blessed form of prayer, I conclude my weak petitions,” she said during the meeting.

After receiving complaints, some Carroll County residents and a group called American Humanist Association issued a warning to the board about “sectarian prayer” during meetings in 2012 and then followed up with a lawsuit in April 2013.

“After the judge has already agreed with us that that’s what’s going on, I think it’s particularly troubling that one of the council members saw fit to violate not only the Constitution but the judge’s very specifically ruling that they can’t be doing this,” said Monica Miller, an attorney for the American Humanist Association.

This fellow seemed to have the best take on the situation:

“My concern is, really, who cares? If they say Jesus, I mean, does it really offend anybody?” questioned resident Brian Resch.

The question is really this: do people have a right to be free from offense at board meetings? After all, Carroll County isn’t establishing a “county religion” by having one of its members pray openly. No one else’s rights to faith or lack thereof have been infringed; the local government isn’t taking roll at the local church to make sure everyone attends. The imposition of silence on religious expression by the judiciary, fueled by those who simply cannot abide the expression of faith, causes more egregious damage toward liberty than a prayer at a board meeting or school graduation does.

There is no doubt that Frazier’s act is deliberately provocative, and one can debate whether that’s an effective witness to faith or not in terms of charity and goodwill. However, isn’t the remedy at hand the next election, rather than a gag order from the federal government?

RELATED: MI union contract gives “special consideration” to “non-Christian” teachers

Politiks As Usual: In The News 3/16/14

Iraq Law Would Allow 9-Year-Old Girls To Marry

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 Search Grows As Pilots Face Increased Scrutiny

'19 Kids and Counting' Stars: We Won't Kiss Until Marriage

What Kind of God Do You Believe In?

Cardinal Dolan ‘Fully Supportive’ of Teaching That Homosexual Activity is Immoral

Priebus: Jolly Election Spotlights Republicans' 'Positive Vision'

Sen. Rand Paul Wins Presidential Survey

50 Years Later, We Know That the NYT Distorted the Kitty Genovese Story to Drive an Agenda

Networks Minimize Bad News For Dems, Tout Obama Shopping at the Gap

Air Force: Christians' Religious Speech Not Legally Protected Right

Maine Hospital Facing $27 Million In Costs Due To Obamacare

Why Some Christians' Kids Blow Off God – and Why Mine Didn't

Jan Brewer Vetos Religious Freedom SB1062 Bill and Caves To Godless, White Liberals

Is it any wonder so many social conservatives in this country have lost faith in the Republican party? With losers like John McCain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and the 3 Arizona Republican members who caved to liberal lies and hyperbole on SB1062 and changed their mind, who needs the GOP?

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer made a statement Wednesday night declaring she already vetoed the controversial SB1062 bill that would permit state businesses to discriminate against LGBT individuals, confirming an earlier report that she was planning to veto the bill.

Advocates of the bill have argued that the bill was meant to protect people’s religious liberty, while opponents insisted it’s just the government adding on another layer of discrimination that gay people have to face in their lives.

Brewer previously pledged she would “do the right thing for Arizona,” and deferred questions by saying she had until Friday to make her decision. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce came out against the bill, as did many businesses (Apple and Marriott among them), and a number of high-profile Republicans, including both of Arizona’s GOP senators, called on Brewer to veto the bill.

RELATED:  7 Myths About Arizona's Religious Freedom Law

Arizona Religious Liberty Law Does Not Cause Discrimination, It Prevents it

RenewAmerica.com:

Arizona's new religious liberty bill is exactly that – a bill that protects the religious liberty of faith-driven businessmen in the Copper State. Lawmakers there are seeking to prevent the truly un-American and shameful things that have happened in New Mexico, Oregon and Colorado where wedding vendors are facing state-imposed penalties, including possible jail time, for simply running their businesses according to deeply-held religious values.

There is no question that homosexuality is a sin according to Christian teaching, and that marriage is exclusively a man-woman proposition. Same-sex "marriages" are thus counterfeit marriages, and no wedding vendor should be compelled against his conscience and Christian conviction to positively affirm something that Scripture condemns.

Now the right to the free exercise of religion – "exercise" means it applies all the time, 24 hour a day, seven days a week – is enshrined in the Constitution. In fact, it is the very first of the unalienable rights the Founders protected in the Bill of Rights.

Conversely, there is no express right in the Constitution to engage in sodomy. You can read the Constitution from left to right, from right to left, backwards, upside down and in Sanskrit and you will find no mention of sodomy whatsoever. But the right to religious liberty is right there in black and white, staring you in the face in the first sentence of the Bill of Rights.

In addition, every state in the Union, including Arizona, prohibits discrimination on the basis or religion. I submit that throwing a practicing Christian in jail because of his religious views is egregious discrimination, and should be in the eyes of any clear-thinking individual whose mind and heart have not been darkened by the spirit of the age.

So the Arizona bill simply affirms protections that are already found in the Constitution and state law. It prevents unconstitutional and illegal discrimination rather than causing it.

Just as no homosexual printer should be forced against his will to produce pamphlets for the Family Research Council, so no Christian baker should be forced to participate in the solemnizing of a ceremony that violates Scripture's view of human sexuality.

The Bible is straightforward and unambiguous: "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them" (Ephesians 5:11).

The bullies and bigots of Big Gay find themselves in the untenable position of wanting to use the tyrannical power of government to force Christians to commit sin and to violate their most deeply held convictions. This is offensive to a colossal degree and violates every classic American value you can mention.

If homosexuals actually believed in tolerance, they would respect the convictions of Christian businessmen and happily and contentedly go to other vendors. It's worth noting that every one of the complaining homosexual couples readily found other vendors to photograph their ceremonies, make their flower arrangements, and bake their cakes.

But the truth is they don't believe in tolerance at all. In reality, they are jack-booted homofascist thugs who want to use the totalitarian and tyrannical power of the state to send men of faith to jail. That sounds far more like Nazi Germany than the United States of America.

RELATED: Kirsten Powers’ Understanding Of Sin And Conscience Lacks A Biblical Foundation

Arizona Religious Freedom Bill Riles Gay Rights Supporters

Townhall.com:

The Arizona Legislature gave final approval Thursday evening to legislation that allows business owners asserting their religious beliefs to refuse service to gays, drawing backlash from Democrats who called the proposal "state-sanctioned discrimination" and an embarrassment.

The 33-27 vote by the House sends the legislation to Republican Gov. Jan Brewer and puts Arizona back at the forefront of a polarizing piece of legislation four years after the state enacted an immigration crackdown that caused a national furor.

Similar religious protection legislation has been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma, but Arizona's plan is the only one that has passed. The efforts are stalled in Idaho, Ohio and Kansas.

Republicans stressed that the bill is about protecting religious freedom and not discrimination. They frequently cited the case of a New Mexico photographer who was sued after refusing to take wedding pictures of a gay couple and said Arizona needs a law to protect people in the state from heavy-handed actions by courts and law enforcement.

The bill allows any business, church or person to cite the law as a defense in any action brought by the government or individual claiming discrimination. It also allows the business or person to seek an injunction once they show their actions are based on a sincere religious belief and the claim places a burden on the exercise of their religion.

The legislation prompted a heated debate on the floor of the House, touching on issues such as the religious freedom, constitutional protections and civil rights.

Opponents raised scenarios in which gay people in Arizona could be denied service at a restaurant or refused medical treatment if a business owner thought homosexuality was not in accordance with his religion. 

One lawmaker held up a sign that read "NO GAYS ALLOWED" in arguing what could happen if the law took effect, drawing a rebuke for violating rules that bar signs on the House floor.

Democrats also said there were a host of other scenarios not involving sexual orientations where someone could raise their religious beliefs as a discrimination defense.

The bill is backed by the Center for Arizona Policy, a social conservative group that opposes abortion and gay marriage. The group says the proposal is needed to protect against increasingly activist federal courts and simply clarifies existing state law.

"We see a growing hostility toward religion," said Josh Kredit, legal counsel for the group.

All but three Republicans in the House backed Senate Bill 1062 Thursday evening. All three House Republicans who broke ranks said they had problems with the proposal, though none elaborated at length.

"I disagree with the bill," said Rep. Ethan Orr. "I think it's a bad bill."

The two others were Reps. Heather Carter and Kate Brophy McGee.

The Senate passed the bill a day earlier on a straight party-line vote of 17-13.

Brewer doesn't comment on pending legislation, but she vetoed a similar measure last year. That action, however, came during an unrelated political standoff, and it's not clear whether she would support or reject this plan.

RELATED:  Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays

Vatican Takes Rolling Stone to Task for Errors in Pope Francis Profile

Breitbart.com:

Imagine, on Super Bowl Sunday, if a sports reporter piped up and said things like, "Hey, since it's called football, can you touch the ball?" or "Hey, what's with the blocking and tackling? That's kind of mean," or "Hey, touchdowns, those are important, right?"

Yeah, that wouldn't end well.

No one would tolerate a sports reporter that showed that level of ignorance about a subject he's chosen to address, but when it comes to the Catholic Church in general and the pope in particular, the under-informed just let their freak flag fly.

Contrary to popular opinion—and the attempts of the mainstream media to portray him as such—Pope Francis is neither a politician nor a pop star. But all popes are public figures and, as such, get a full range of news coverage, from adoration to condemnation (some get both in one papacy).

Normally, the Vatican, which exists in a head space unlike any other, doesn't get visibly upset about the negative coverage, unless it's seriously inaccurate (hence the eventual removal from the Vatican Web site of the Pope Francis "interview" with octogenarian La Repubblica editor Eugenio Scalfari, who recreated the chat solely from memory, with decidedly mixed results).

When Time magazine named Francis its Person of the Year for 2013, the Vatican acknowledged it, essentially saying, "Yeah, of course you picked him. Duh." But it was left to bloggers, Twitter, and other media outlets—including, interestingly enough, Politico—to note errors in Time's bio of the pontiff (it originally cited his "rejection of church dogma," which hasn't actually ever happened), prompting a rewrite.

The Vatican's general attitude seems to be gratitude for the nice or neutral coverage and a resigned indifference to the negative and unusual. When gay magazine The Advocate named Francis its Person of the Year in December, the Vatican was unruffled. Of course, it helped that the article was well-researched and well-written. While the writer obviously didn't agree with all of Francis's (and the Church's) position on issues relating to persons with same-sex attraction, at least he understood them and was able to find some (accurate) common ground.

For its February issue, Rolling Stone put Francis on its cover—months after featuring a Tiger Beat-worthy photo of doe-eyed Boston Bombing terror suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnev—accompanied by a long feature piece featuring a lot of purple prose and factual errors about the papacy.

For example, writer Mark Binelli refers to the pope as "supposedly infallible," which displays a complete lack of knowledge about the meaning of papal infallibility, answers about which are just a Google away. And he refers to Jesus as a "homeless proto-hippie."

Don't worry, there's more.

At one point, for reasons that seem more related to the writer's inner life than that of his subject, Binelli compares Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI's appearance to that of "Nightmare on Elm Street" character Freddy Kreuger, saying, "he looked like he should be wearing a striped shirt with knife-fingered gloves and menacing teenagers in their nightmares."

Apparently no one told these Catholic teens at the 2005 World Youth Day gathering in Cologne, Germany, that, upon seeing Benedict, they should run for their lives.

RELATED:  9 ridiculous claims in Rolling Stone’s cover story on Pope Francis

New Virginia Attorney General: I’m Asking the Courts to Strike Down Our State’s Ban on Gay Marriage

Some more liberal fascism for ya:

Noteworthy, although not because it’s novel. This is basically the same move Holder made three years ago in declaring that he and Obama would take the position in court that Section 3 of DOMA required “heightened scrutiny” under the Equal Protection Clause, which is a fancy way of saying that they thought the law was unconstitutional and should be struck down. It’s unusual for an AG to refuse to defend a statute in his jurisdiction, but not unheard of. Because the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, a prosecutor’s good-faith belief that a statute conflicts with it would/should lead him to oppose it. Ken Cuccinelli, in fact, refused to defend one of Bob McDonnell’s education reforms because he believed it violated the Virginia Constitution.

What makes this novel is the political position that Mark Herring’s in. He won the election for AG in November by less than a thousand votes. He was sworn in less than two weeks ago. He did note on the trail, as virtually all Democrats these days do and must, that he now supports gay marriage (he mentioned it as recently as five days before the election), but he’d voted against the practice as a legislator years before. 

There was every reason to think that, when presented with a searingly divisive issue after an excruciatingly close election, he’d want to lie low. Nope. The state will still enforce the ban on SSM until a court tells it otherwise, he says — that’s his concession to SSM opponents and jittery Democrats who fear a backlash from elected officials summarily overturning state law — but he’s going to do whatever he can to get a court to make that determination. Makes me wonder when that next step will be taken, where an AG who’s pro-SSM is elected in a state that’s trending the same way but still has a traditional marriage law on the books and he decides that he’s simply not going to enforce the law at all. If some Democrats don’t get the result they want in court fast enough, they might resort to measures like that.

Virginia Republicans are unhappy:

“By running for the office, Mark Herring asked for the challenge of defending Virginia’s constitution and all it contains,” Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Pat Mullins said in a statement.

“If Mark Herring doesn’t want to defend this case, he should resign, and let the General Assembly appoint someone who will. Mark Herring owes the people of Virginia no less,” he added…

“This lawlessness is an insult to the voters of Virginia who approved the marriage amendment by a large majority,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The ‘left’ is becoming a law unto itself.”

Schwarzenegger and his state AG at the time, Jerry Brown, refused to defend Prop 8 even though it had been passed by popular referendum because they too thought the statute was unconstitutional. Lefty law prof Erwin Chemerinsky, while opposed to Prop 8, wrote at the time that he found it “disturbing” that a majority of California voters could be deprived of a state attorney to defend a law they enacted simply because of a difference of opinion with their leaders over the law’s constitutionality. He proposed having states pass laws to enable the governor to appoint a special attorney to defend a statute in cases where the AG feels, in good faith, that he can’t. A solution for Virginia?

One other note here: The case in which the Supreme Court struck down laws against interracial marriage, which has been cited in many a brief ever since as a reason to strike down gay-marriage bans as well, originated in Virginia. Herring is, of course, aware of that. Maybe that’s why he moved so quickly on this — if Virginia’s law ends up being the one the Supremes use for the landmark “gay marriage is now legal” decision that everyone knows is coming, the political symbolism would make Herring a star and set him up to succeed McAuliffe as governor.

RELATED: Gay Marriages Confront Catholic School Rules

Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries: Christian Businesses Must Follow Demands of Gay Customers

Townhall.com:

The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community.

Last year, the bakery’s owners refused to make a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, of Portland, citing their Christian beliefs. The couple then filed a complaint with the state.

“The investigation concludes that the bakery is not a religious institution under the law and that the business’ policy of refusing to make same-sex wedding cakes represents unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation,” said Charlie Burr, a spokesman for the Bureau of Labor and Industries.

The backlash against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the bakery, was severe. Gay rights groups launched protests and pickets outside the family’s store. They threatened wedding vendors who did business with the bakery. And, Klein told me, the family’s children were the targets of death threats.

The family eventually had to close their retail shop and now operate the bakery out of their home. They posted a message vowing to stand firm in their faith. It read, in part:

“To all of you that have been praying for Aaron and I, I want to say thank you. I know that your prayers are being heard. I feel such a peace with all of this that is going on. Even though there are days that are hard and times of struggle we still feel that the Lord is in this. It is His fight and our situation is in His hands….Please continue to pray for our family. God is great, amazing and all powerful. I know He has a plan.”

Under state law, the complaint against the bakery now moves into a period of reconciliation. If they can’t reach an agreement, formal civil charges could be filed and the Kleins could face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

Last August, Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian, their desire is to rehabilitate businesses like the one owned by the Christian couple.

“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”

Aaron Klein told me there will be no reconciliation and there will be no rehabilitation. He and his wife will not back down from their Christian beliefs.

RELATED:  ‘Bachelor’ Juan Pablo Galavis-GLAAD Release New Apology for Anti-Gay Statements

Pastor Robert Jeffress Tells Bill O’Reilly How Obama Is Laying the Groundwork for the Anti-Christ

Mediaite.com:

Pastor Robert Jeffress sat down with Bill O’Reilly Monday night to argue that President Obama is laying the groundwork for the rise of the Anti-Christ because he is “conditioning” people to rely on government support. He said there will be a “future world dictator before Christ returns who’s going to usurp people’s personal rights, and “change God’s laws… without any opposition” so “people will have been conditioned long before the Antichrist comes to accept government overreach, and that’s what you’re seeing with President Obama.”

He said, “I’m not saying President Obama is the Anti-Christ. In fact, I’m sure he’s not, because the Anti-Christ is going to have higher poll numbers.”

He argued that in addition to Obamacare creating a culture of dependency, Obama is sowing the seeds for the Anti-Christ with the contraception mandate and “abortion-inducing drugs,” as well as the “redefinition of marriage.” He argued that gay marriage is simply a “counterfeit” of real marriage, and “whenever you say marriage is whatever you want it to be… people say why bother getting married at all.”

RELATED:  Exemptions from the ‘contraception mandate’ threaten religious liberty

Rev. Franklin Graham Blasts Churches for Weak Support of Phil Robertson in ‘Religious War Against Christians’

Mediaite.com:

The Rev. Franklin Graham took to his website on December 30 to severely scold the Christian community for failing to show sufficient support for Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson and for not sticking up for the values expressed in comments which resulted in his brief suspension. Graham said that there is a “religious war” being waged against Christians, and churches have a duty to take a stand against it.


“As the Robertson controversy winds down—at least for now—I have been amazed at how many churches have apparently “ducked” out on the issue (sin). Some were even quick to condemn Phil Robertson,” Graham wrote.

“If we Christians banded together and took a stand, perhaps we wouldn’t be losing so much ground in what the media is calling the ‘cultural war,’” Graham continued. “However, it is not a cultural war—it is a religious war against Christians and the biblical truths we stand for. Some churches have fallen into the trap of being politically correct, under the disguise of tolerance.”

Graham said that the statements Robertson have been cast in the press as “intolerant” but they were, in his opinion, only “not tolerant of sin.” He added that the Bible’s message of penitence and repentance was a positive message and Robertson’s comments reflected this sentiment. 

RELATED:  What did Jesus say about homosexuality?

Director Kevin Smith Plots Film With 'Rapturing Giant Jesus' Destroying All Life on Earth

Newsbusters.org:

Filmmaker Kevin Smith wasn’t satisfied making a religion-bashing comedy in “Dogma,” or a religion-bashing gore film with overtones of David Koresh and Fred Phelps called “Red State.” The website Film School Rejects reports Smith has a new film in the planning stages.

It’s “the punnily-titled ‘Helena Handbag’....he’s currently writing the screenplay based off [his own podscast] SModcast called ‘The (C)rapture.” Does it sound like the wit is overflowing? The villain is a “rapturing giant Jesus” out to destroy the world as we know it:

As he describes it, Helena Handbag is a rapture flick with a twist on where the good people want to wind up when the world starts ending. That’s because in this version of the end of days, mankind teams up with Hell to stop a vengeful, Rapturing giant Jesus from destroying the world and causing the extinction of all earthly existence. Smith smartly reasons on the podcast that the budget is probably going to be low for this production because people are probably going to hesitate getting their names getting attached to this script. 

Still, more offensive and far-fetched ideas have made it to theaters. It would also be a satisfying conclusion to the end of Red State that never was; Smith has stated before that he originally wanted the film to end with an actual (bloody) rapture after the trumpet heralds, rather than just a fakeout messing with the vastly devout family. If anything, the premise of the film is going along with Smith’s filmmaking motto, that “from now until I drop dead, I’m only ever gonna make a flick that only I would/could ever make.” Sounds about right.

Move over, Orson Welles.

"Red State" never ended up for a stay in theaters (it made a brief appearance in a few cities), but went direct to On Demand. This doesn't exactly sound like a "mainstream" film, either. It sounds like Smith is never going to grow up out of adolescent ennui.

RELATED: Surprising Number Of Americans Don't Believe In Evolution (VIDEO)

5 Things Obamacare Teaches You About Liberals

Townhall.com:

1) It's inherently dishonest: In many ways, Obamacare is a typical liberal program. Unfortunately for Barack Obama, there are two key differences. The first is that the Affordable Care Act was implemented on a short enough timetable for people to remember the promises that were made about it. Furthermore, because it is such an enormous program, it impacts a lot more lives. Otherwise, it's a standard liberal program that makes promises it never intends to keep and does more damage than good. Liberal programs usually have huge, yet very predictable downsides that are systematically hidden, ignored and downplayed because liberal ideas can't survive an educated, honest debate about whether they work or not. 

2) Results are irrelevant: Barack Obama promised that if you like your insurance, you can keep it. He said the same thing about your doctor. He claimed Obamacare would REDUCE the cost of health care, save the average person money and provide universal coverage. Not only are all of those promises untrue, it's hard to miss the fact that no one on the Left SEEMS TO CARE. That's because whether Obamacare actually works or not is secondary to left-wing goals like centralizing government power, gaining more control over the American people and making liberals feel good about themselves. This is the rule, not the exception when it comes to liberals. Put another way, whether a liberal supports a program doesn't have anything to do with whether it works or not. 

3) It penalizes success: Contrary to what you'd believe if you listen to the Left, 85% of Americans were perfectly happy with their insurance before the Affordable Care Act came along. Yet because of Obamacare, tens of millions of those people are going to lose their health insurance and most of them will pay more. In other words, our health care system was working just fine for the vast majority of Americans until Barack Obama took a wrecking ball to it. So, in order to help a relatively small number of people, liberals are perfectly willing to penalize Americans -- who worked hard, played by the rules and took care of themselves -- with much higher costs and lost plans. This is standard operating procedure for liberals who act as if doing well enough to live your life free of welfare, food stamps and government nannies is "cheating." 

4) It doesn't work: A hammer is a good tool to use for pounding nails. It's not such a great tool to use in place of a screwdriver, saw or wrench. Government can be a good tool as well when it's used for the limited purposes for which it’s designed -- such as putting up street signs, building roads and forming a military to protect us from other nations. The problem with liberals is that they want to use their government hammer for every task imaginable instead of letting the free market provide the right tool for the job. You think a billing dispute with an insurance company is unpleasant? Wait until you're hashing it out with the IRS. You don't like to deal with your insurance company? Wait until you have a problem with your insurance and can't get it corrected until you get approval from a government agent. Our government is slow, stupid, arrogant and generally unfriendly to consumers. The more government you have in your life, the more unpleasant your life is likely to be. 

5) There are no trade-offs: Liberals seem to be incapable of mentally comprehending trade-offs. So instead, they present Utopian visions of how life would look in a perfect world and offer that up as a political alternative to the messy, oftentimes unpleasant reality we live in. It would be fantastic if Santa Claus, Star Trek replicators, and genies were real, but when you seek heaven on earth, you're more likely to start wandering towards hell.

RELATED:  Judge: Obamacare’s HHS Mandate Forces Catholic Groups to Violate Their Religion

Poll: 75 Percent Say Celebrate Christmas in Public Schools

Townhall.com:

Despite the attempt by the Texas state legislature to ban the very word "Christmas" from an elementary school "winter party," it seems the vast majority of Americans are still in full support of celebrating the religious holiday in public schools. 

A Rasmussen report released Wednesday has the details:

"Despite school administrators’ concerns nationwide, Americans strongly believe that Christmas should be a part of public schools. They feel just as strongly that religious symbols should be allowed on public property. 

Seventy-five percent (75%) of American Adults think Christmas should be celebrated in public schools, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% disagree, while 10% are not sure."

Stories, such as the recent case where Jesus was removed from the nativity scene at the South Carolina Air Force base, should not be understood as the national perspective on the presence of Christ in the public holiday. Only ten percent of Americans polled did not support celebrating Christmas in the classroom. The so called, "War on Christmas" might not be as much of an uphill battle as many are being led to believe. 

RELATED:  O’Reilly Psychoanalyzes Atheists: So Much ‘Anger,’ ‘Are They That Bitter Against Religion?”

Sarah Palin: ‘Angry Atheists Armed with an Attorney’ Want to ‘Abort Christ from Christmas’

Mediaite.com:

Sarah Palin spoke at Liberty University on Thursday, and one of the issues she addressed was the War on Christmas™ and the “angry atheists” hell-bent on ruining the holiday for everyone else. Palin invoked the words of Founders like Thomas Jefferson, who she said despite his writings on the separation of church and state, would be up in arms against people attempting to “abort Christ from Christmas.”

Palin agreed that Jefferson’s message has been grossly distorted by atheists attempting to use him for their own agenda, and argued that the nation’s third president would, in fact, be on the side of Christians fighting to celebrate the holiday.

“Thomas Jefferson today, he would recognize those who would want to try to ignore that Jesus is the reason for the season, those who would want to try to abort Christ from Christmas. He would recognize, for the most part, these are angry atheists armed with an attorney. They are not the majority of Americans.”

She also found it to be a ridiculous double standard that somehow it’s okay for atheists to take offense at public displays of religion on government grounds, but religious people can’t get offended when they believe their holiday is being undermined. Palin concluded that people should follow Jefferson’s example and refuse to “sit down and shut up.”

RELATED:  O’Reilly Psychoanalyzes Atheists: So Much ‘Anger,’ ‘Are They That Bitter Against Religion?”

Why White Trash Habits Keep College Graduates in the Parental Basement

Breitbart.com:

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed in his Second Bill of Rights that having a job is a right, the squire of Hyde Park unwittingly ushered in the era of White Trash Normal, the subject of my new book.

With apologies to FDR, a job is not a right. How could it be? Obtaining and holding down a job are instead obligations unless a trust fund (now, that’s my idea of a right!—) relieves you of such mundane concerns. It seems that that many recent college grads agree with President Roosevelt, however. Indeed, many have not bothered to cultivate the social virtues, including humility, required for landing and keeping a job. Could that be why so many are joining the leisure class rather than the workforce? 

In a thought-provoking story, Time magazine recently explored “the real reason new college graduates can’t get hired. It’s not because they lack STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) training, and the recession is only partly to blame. Young people who have bad manners (now called "social skills) and dress eccentrically drive high youth unemployment. Time quoted a global study by Talent Shortage Survey from ManpowerGroup that found that one in five employers worldwide can’t find qualified young people to fill jobs. 

"Specifically, companies say candidates are lacking in motivation, interpersonal skills, appearance, punctuality and flexibility," Time noted. Such sloppiness shows us that the values of Skunk Hollow have gone mainstream. And if a young person gives off a vibe of believing a job is just another entitlement, he is less likely to get it. It's also not a bad idea to dress appropriately when seeking work. 

Some recent college graduates show up for job interviews in get-ups that would make Snuffy Smith, the moonshiner from the Appalachia, look respectable. Let's face it: Tattoos are dandy if you are a Maori but otherwise do little to improve a young person's job prospects. Sixty percent of respondents in York College of Pennsylvania's 2013 report on Professionalism in the Workplace, which deals with employers' experiences with recent college graduates, regard tattoos as an impediment to professionalism. Yet 38 percent of those in the 18-29 age group are inked. 

Even more basic, perhaps, many college grads seem not to have come to terms with the concept of--uh--work.

A Forbes magazine article on job hunting mistakes new college grads make noted that all too many are likely to say they seek an entry level position where I can use my skills, ideas, and enthusiasm and I can learn a lot.

And a potential employer might care about this because?

When I ask interns to do low-level telephoning for me, they expect me to look up the phone numbers. Sorry, they’re there to help me with my job, not the other way around. A friend of a friend who was supervising recent graduates complained about their tendency to give assignments back to her with notes along the lines that someone should check this or that. She had to tell them, “That would be you.””

“"This group, age 20-32, makes a series of job-searching mistakes that stem from their sense of entitlement, lack of deference to authority, and over-involvement by their parents," Forbes reported. Elayne Clift, an adjunct faculty member at several New England colleges, wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education, 

"Increasingly, students seem not to realize what a college degree, especially a graduate degree, tells the world about one's abilities and competence. They have no clue what is expected of them at the higher levels of academic discourse and what will be expected of them in the workplace."

One of the main reasons so many privileged young college graduates act like White Trash is, ironically, that they are spoiled. They don’t recognize that work is something you do out of obligation. Enthusiasm is nice, but it’s not historically why people have worked.

RELATED:  Kan. school reportedly prohibits student from posting fliers with Bible verses

Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to Obamacare’s Contraceptive Mandate

Mediaite.com:

On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would take up a challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage mandates on the grounds that it could violate the First Amendment to the Constitution’s guaranteed religious freedoms. Lower courts have issued split decisions on the issue, forcing the nation’s highest court to finally resolve the mandate’s constitutionality.

The case has been brought by Hobby Lobby, a crafts chain with approximately 13,000 employees. The chain’s owners, the Green family, claim that forcing them to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees violates their religious beliefs. 

“The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate but it says it cannot provide or pay for four of the drugs including Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill,” ABC News reports. “The Greens belief is that human life begins when sperm fertilize an egg and that it is immoral for them to facilitate any act that causes the death of a human embryo.”

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance could survive so long as the penalty applied to those who do not comply with the mandate was construed as a tax.

RELATED:  Uh oh: Another ObamaCare “success” story turns sour for White House

Federal Appeals Court Blocks Obamacare's Contraception Mandate

SacBee.com:

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a pro-life legal organization that focuses on constitutional law, said a decision by a federal appeals court that clears the way for the ObamaCare HHS Mandate to be put on hold represents a "significant victory for protecting the religious beliefs of individuals and corporations." The opinion, posted here, comes in the case of Korte v. Sebelius.

In a 2-1 decision issued Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the court reversed the federal district court's denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction and remanded the case for the district court to enter the preliminary injunction.  At the same time, the court upheld the rights of both individuals and companies to challenge the ObamaCare HHS Mandate – the first decision of its kind in the ongoing HHS Mandate litigation.

"This is a significant victory for protecting the religious beliefs of individuals and corporations," said Edward White, Senior Counsel of the ACLJ who represents the Illinois company. "It is also important to note that the appeals court determined that the HHS Mandate should not move forward against our clients while this issue is being litigated. It has been our position from the beginning that the HHS Mandate violates America's longstanding history of protecting conscience rights. The Mandate is unlawfully compelling employers such as our clients to do the following: abandon their faith to comply with the law, or follow their faith and pay significant annual penalties to the federal government. The decision by the appeals court is encouraging as this issue heads to the Supreme Court." 

The ACLJ represents Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc., a family owned, full-service construction contractor serving Central and Southern Illinois for over 50 years. The company is located in Highland, Illinois and has about 90 full time employees. The company provides a group health insurance plan for only its non-union employees, which number about 20. Cyril B. Korte and Jane E. Korte own a controlling interest in the company and contend the HHS mandate violates their Catholic faith. The ACLJ filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the individuals and company in October 2012 and that is posted here.

In the appeals court decision issued Friday, the majority concluded: "We hold that the plaintiffs – the business owners and their companies – may challenge the mandate. We further hold that compelling them to cover these services substantially burdens their religious exercise rights. Under RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) the government must justify the burden under the standard of strict scrutiny. So far it has not done so, and we doubt that it can. Because the RFRA claims are very likely to succeed and the balance of harms favors protecting the religious-liberty rights of the plaintiffs, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter preliminary injunctions."

This decision comes just days after the ACLJ filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, posted here, in the case of Gilardi v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The ACLJ urged the high court to overturn an appeals court decision that refused to permit companies and corporations from bringing religious liberty claims in challenging the Mandate.

To date, 40 for-profit business owners have filed legal challenges to the Mandate. The ACLJ has filed 7 cases in federal court including the Korte case.

RELATED:  Press Virtually Silent as Appeals Court Blocks Obamacare's Contraception Mandate

Isaiah Smith, Gay Kid Who Claims To Be "Christian", Is Suspended for Ripping Pages of Leviticus Out of Bible in Class

The Bible is very clear on where it stands on homosexuality. But it's 2013 and we live in a world where engaging in Godless acts like homosexuality has become the "new normal". So if you're a young boy who sexually desires to be intimate with other boys while claiming to be a "Christian", why not pick-n-choose what you'll follow when it comes to God's word, and what you won't:

A homosexual student in Texas was suspended last week for ripping pages of Leviticus out of his Bible during his Spanish class.

Isaiah Smith is an 18-year-old senior at Birdville High School in North Richland Hills. Last week, he brought his Bible to his first period Spanish class to refute his fellow classmates who state that homosexuality is a sin, or violation of the law of God. Smith identifies as a Christian, but states that his homosexuality does not conflict with his faith.

“At my high school, some kids like to say that being gay is a sin and that you can’t be gay and Christian,” Smith told the Star-Telegram. “I wanted to bring my Bible to school and interpret the books of Leviticus and Romans because they are often used to bully gay people.”

He states that as students again asserted last Monday that he would go Hell for violating God’s law, he began tearing pages out of the Book of Leviticus and other portions of Scripture.

However, Smith was then reprimanded by Vice Principal Glenn Serviente, who arrived at the classroom and instructed Smith to follow him to his office. Smith told reporters that Serviente advised that he was causing a disruption to the learning environment by tearing up his Bible in class.  He states that he was told by Serviente that he could carry his Bible in school if he wished, but could not rip pages out of it.

Two days later, Smith was called back to the vice principal’s office.

“How would Muslims feel if a student was tearing up the Quran?” Serviente asked, according to reports.

Smith responded that he understood that other students would not like it, but noted that he was not tearing up another person’s Bible, but rather his own.

He was then suspended from school for three days and his torn Bible was confiscated.

However, now Smith has retained legal assistance from the Washington-based American Humanist Association (AHA), which is demanding that the strike be expunged from Smith’s record.

RELATED: Kenya Christian pastors start gay rights group and fly rainbow flag