Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Revised- Speak Truthfully on Christianity and Homosexuality, Get Dropped From Show

Crucial revision 12/19/13-  On this post (below), I noted that one of the main tactics of the radicals is to purposefully misrepresent anything and everything in order to ensure that the individual has no idea of what reality is. If Christianity does not condone homosexual acts (or adultery for that matter), the Left and their allies will simply pretend to be under the impression that it does and that anyone who says otherwise does not believe in Christianity.

I have been reading F. A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and - today of all days, I reach this chapter in his great and extraordinarily insightful work:
http://www.crossroad.to/Excerpts/books/revolution/hayek/serfdom-11.htm


Brief excerpts:

Chapter 11: The End of Truth

"In this particular case the perversion of the meaning of the word has, of course, been well prepared .... by many of the theoreticians of socialism. But 'freedom' or 'liberty' are by no means the only words whose meaning has been changed into their opposites to make them serve as instruments of totalitarian propaganda. We have already seen how the same happens to 'justice' and “law,' 'right' and 'equality.' The list could be extended until it includes almost all moral and political terms in general use.

"... the confusion becomes worse because this change of meaning of the words [or in this case the New Testament and the teachings of Christianity itself] describing political ideals is not a single event but a continuous process, a technique employed consciously or unconsciously to direct the people....

"It is not difficult to deprive the great majority of independent thought. But the minority who will retain an inclination to criticize must also be silenced.... Since many parts of this code will never be explicitly stated... every act of the government, must become sacrosanct and exempt from criticism. If the people are to support the common effort without hesitation, they must be convinced that not only the end aimed at but also the means chosen are the right ones."[p.175]

"The word 'truth' itself ceases to have its old meaning. ...it becomes something to be laid down by authority, something which has to be believed in theinterest of the unity of the organized effort and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organized effort require it.

"The general intellectual climate which this produces, the spirit of complete cynicism as regards truth which it engenders, the loss of the sense of even the meaning of truth, the disappearance of the spirit of independent inquiry.... Perhaps the most alarming fact is that contempt for intellectual liberty is not a thing which arises only once the totalitarian system is established but one which can be found everywhere among intellectuals who have embraced a collectivist faith and who are acclaimed as intellectual leaders even in countries still under a liberal regime."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main post:

Here we have the Orwellian United States manifesting itself in more than one form.

The TV show Duck Dynasty, which features a family that runs a very successful duck-calling (hunting) business in its work and lifestyle, has been a marketing triumph. You can't go to a Wal-Mart without seeing blankets or shirts with the faces of these grizzled country boys staring at you.

The Robertson family places a great amount of emphasis on their faith. They are Christians and make no attempt to hide this.

Recently, the leader of the clan, Phil, made his views on homosexual behavior known to the world during an interview with GQ. He made use of common sense and also cited an easy-to-understand passage from the New Testament.  The standard and perfectly coordinated calls of feigned outrage resulted in Phil being dropped from the show, at least for now.

Make no mistake, the way these people operate has a coordination, timing, and synchronizing of their lies and hatred that would make Operation Overlord  look like a plan that was thrown together at the last minute.

I will avoid the sacking that Phil was dealt and treat another part of the report - one that will likely not be brought by many - the mega-Orwellian  WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH* play of lies that the radicals employ to deceive a compliant and often willingly ignorant public.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/duck-dynastys-phil-robertson-indefinite-666808



GLAAD
[I think it stands for the Fay and Lesbian anti-Deafmtion Alliance but what they are is an alliance that enages in defamtion] on Wednesday condemned his remarks as "some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication" and said "his quote was littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation."

[The blatant lies made by glad were apparently insufficient in their eyes, so they decided to lie about what? Yes, you got it, they lie about what Christians believe. Below is a classic example of what is being done on a routine basis in the US today - a lie about a lie about yet another lie. The idea is to demonize individuals who believe in something by employing viciously false assertions about the very system in which the person believes. GLAAD lies (1) by stating that Phil lies (2) about being a Christian, and they lie about what Christianity says about certain sinful acts.(3)]

"Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe," GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz said. "He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans -- and Americans -- who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors, who now need to re-examine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families."

[Did you get that? Christians do not believe that homosexual acts are sinful]

The human rights campaign joined in with more lies about the "values of faith communities"

"The Human Rights Campaign also slammed Robertson for his remarks.

Phil Robertson’s remarks are not consistent with the values of our faith communities or the scientific findings of leading medical organizations," president Chad Griffin said in a statement. "We know that being gay is not a choice someone makes, and that to suggest otherwise can be incredibly harmful. We also know that Americans of faith follow the Golden Rule -- treating others with the respect and dignity you’d wish to be treated with. As a role model on a show that attracts millions of viewers, Phil Robertson has a responsibility to set a positive example for young Americans -- not shame and ridicule them because of who they are. The A+E Network should take immediate action to condemn Phil Robertson’s remarks and make clear they don’t support his views."


Any body that designates itself to be a church or synagogue that denies that fornication, adultery,  or homosexual acts are anything but sinful does not function as a church, etc., but the grass-roots type of Orwellian Newspeak/Doublethink will consistently tell you otherwise.

The idea is simple but right of the totalitarian playbook; misrepresent groups that hold positions contrary to theirs to persuade the average individual that his own group condones whatever the radicals want condoned. They will also march out people who claim to be Christians (and sometimes a renegade pastor or priest), have them assert that Christianity does not  prohibit this type pf activity. If you hold to the positions of your group, you will be labeled as a hypocrite who refuses to believe the fictional position of your group that has been manufactured by the radicals.

Bearing false witness was an abominable sin for two reasons. In the days before forensic evidence, the vast amount of evidence in a trial was the testimony of a witness. That was the practical aspect of a law when one's word was the only thing of any real value when obtaining proofs. The second and most important aspect is that, when you lie about person or a group, you attack what they are. 

When one bears false witness he is stealing the most important thing that an individual or group possesses and the only thing of this world that an individual can take with him to the grave - his reputation. 

*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/04/fourth-grade-students-essay-doublethink.html




Tuesday, December 17, 2013

State Law Mandates That Brain Dead Girl be Taken off Life Support

I keep hearkening back to my youth when I read 1984 (in 1981 -I was 14)) and was convinced that Totalitarianism was only a foreign threat. If only we could contain Communism until it collapsed*, we would be fine.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/17/the-reason-a-calif-teen-will-soon-be-taken-off-life-support-against-the-wishes-of-her-family/

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/local/girl-left-brain-dead-after-tonsil-surgery-being-ta/ncMgG/

"OAKLAND, Calif. —

A 13-year-old Oakland girl will be removed from life support on Tuesday because she's been declared brain dead after she suffered complications following a routine tonsil-removal procedure, her uncle said Monday.

Jahi McMath, an eighth-grade student at the E.C. Reems Academy of Technology and Arts in Oakland, was declared brain dead last Thursday after she went into cardiac arrest while recovering from having her tonsils removed at Children's Hospital Oakland days before.

Under state law, brain death must be determined by two different doctors doing two different sets of tests at least 3 hours apart."


[Three hours and two doctors who are in the area- that is what a 14 year old girl's life has been reduced to in our society]

"In a meeting with McMath’s family Monday, the head of the hospital’s pediatrics department said that because she had been declared dead under state law, McMath would be pulled from life support.

“We didn't want her to be removed from life support but the decision is out of our hands because it's been declared a legal death,” said Omari Sealey, 27, McMath’s uncle.......

Sealey said McMath went to Children's Hospital Oakland on Dec. 9 to have her tonsils removed to cure a sleep apnea problem.

But he said McMath had trouble breathing and suffered “an enormous amount of bleeding” after the surgery, which is typically a routine procedure.

“No one knew what was going on,” said Sealey.

Her troubles continued for several days after that, and then on Thursday McMath went into cardiac arrest and was declared brain dead........"


Aside from the fact that there is an enormous amount of evidence that the condition that is routinely diagnosed by physicians is often no more than a type of deep coma, California state law effectively codifies that in this case not even family members have any say in whether or not life support is continued for any length of time. No allowance is allowed for a wait-and-see if the patient improves approach or if the family can seek another opinion from a doctor of their own choice. 

No, the law is supreme, even if the legislation itself violates the Natural Law or the Rule of Law itself. 

The Natural Law - that which is written on the hearts of all, needs no explanation. The Rule of Law, despite modernists who labor to frame this concept purely as a formality that ensures that all are equally affected by laws, also has as its basic principle the legal protection of individual rights. If a law  requires that all severely disabled newborns be put to death, then the Rule of Law is violated even if no one is given an arbitrary exception while others are subjected to the specifications of the statute

We are fast approaching the day when these occurrences will no longer be restricted to rare cases. Even with Obamacare, let alone the Leftist longed-for euphemism of the 'single payer system", the table is set for the day when many life-or-death decisions will be up to what "the book' says.

The People cannot allow human life to be regulated like the fine print of an automotive warranty does for a vehicle repair.

When the State can decides who lives and who dies; when your life is a matter of a bureaucratic reading of a flow-chart, the People no longer can be described as free. They are not governed, but ruled.

Not citizens, but subjects.

Again, I assert that we in the US - unless we can successfully work to hold Article V conventions to roll back the tide of Leftist policies and violations of human rights, will soon have no option other than to effect a political break with the states/regions of the nation that are beyond our ability to repair. I would rather see my beloved republic honorably laid to rest with another, smaller but restored republic created  to continue protecting our enshrined freedoms and liberties than live in a zombie-like US that has none of its original substance and is animated only by Leftist thought and methods of control.



"Where I went wrong was in a failure to realize that all modern Marxists are Trotskyites at heart. As Trotsky understood, Marxism's only chance of succeeding was if free market/capitalistic nations were eliminated from the playing board. "Communism just hasn't been tried/done right" would be the new mantra for Western Socialists. The latter have long recognized the crucial reality that, in order worldwide Socialism to work, three things are needed.....[Above link]



Monday, December 16, 2013

North Carolina GOP Not Supportive of Article V Convention

Hat tip to New Jersey Patriot.

This is most certainly bad news.

The momentum that we have seen for Article V conventions*  hit a big snag in the Tarheel State. I have noted in previous posts that North Carolina, for a southeastern state, tends to reads dangerously close to being a Left-leaning state**. I find that quite disappointing as NC has been the annual family vacation destination of ours for many years. We love the people, the history, the towns, and of course the beaches. My youngest is 17 and he would pass on any other place to return to the spot in which he spent much of his life for his summer vacation.

http://newjerseypatriotblog.newjerseypatriot.us/?p=3184

http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2013-12-13-270320.112112-The-NC-Republican-Party-is-against-a-Convention-of-States.html

[Written by William Moore - Bio is at the end of the post on the Beaufort Observer link]

"It would not be fair if I did not start out buy commenting on how well the Republicans have done since they have taken over both houses of the NC General Assembly and the Governor's Office. They have developed long range plans that will help this state become stronger economically, lower taxes, deal with excessive regulations and initiated the beginnings of a new bold approach to Education.

However when they are wrong, I must call them on what I perceive as their major mistake. As Conservative/ Republicans we all believe the Federal Government has gone too far in extending its power and violates the Constitution almost daily. Examples include excessive regulations that hurt business, collapsing state rights from the 10th amendments, Money bills starting in the Senate instead of the House, and selectively deciding which parts of a law it will enforce. Out of control spending, and deficits are the new norm. Even Liberal Constitutional experts have started to comment on how dangerous it is becoming when the Constitution is being trampled upon.

Most ordinary people agree the Government is broken and we believe they are incapable of fixing it. Nor do they want to. Too many elected Officials have placed their own re-election and their Political Party ahead of what is good for the Nation The only legal solutions left to the people are passing Constitutional Amendments that will force the Government to do the right things for the Nation. These amendments could include a balanced budget requirement, and term limits on Congress just to name two possibilities. Another would force Congress to be subjected to the laws they pass. The only way for this to happen is a Call for a Convention of States with a specific agenda for consideration. If 38 State legislatures call for a convention, it must happen. If 38 states pass any Constitutional Amendments, they take effect without the consent of Congress, the President or the Supreme Court.

One would think our legislature would jump at the chance to limit Federal expansion and to shore up States rights under the 10th amendment. Much to my surprise, I found out our State legislator have joined with the Democrats to try to rescind any NC previous calls for a Convention of States and is urging other state legislatures to do the same.
As I spoke with friends and researched the facts the following cannot be refuted and can be confirmed by going to the general Assembly website:...........

I urge all readers, friends and their families to contact their State legislators and ask them to support a Convention of States. You asked us to trust you and we did, now trust us."








Sunday, December 15, 2013

Pope Francis - Some Marxists are Good People

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/15/pope-francis-responds-to-marxism-allegations/

In honor of the late Peter O'Toole, I will paraphrase the famous question attributed to O'Toole's character in Beckett, Henry II Plantagenet:

Who will rid me of this upstart Pope?

I will fairly admit that the press regularly (and grossly) exaggerates Pope Francis' statements, but what concerns me (aside from his brutally casual disregard for the actual message of the Gospel) is his dangerous naivete in regards to the dark world of Socialism. 

Francis has a penchant for giving interviews in which he digs our whole ever more deeply. In one recent interview with La Stampa, he (thanks to Heaven), clarified that "Marxist ideology is wrong".

What immediately followed that statement, however, is something so disturbing as to effectively negate the meaning of his disapproval of Marxism as a whole:

http://www.lastampa.it/2013/12/14/esteri/vatican-insider/en/never-be-afraid-of-tenderness-5BqUfVs9r7W1CJIMuHqNeI/pagina.html

“The Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.” 

That sounds nice, but it is a patently false statement.

No amount of good intentions can make a Marxist a good person. Among other things, a Marxist - by the very nature of his outlook, denies the following.:

-His Creator and any concept of sin.

-Any significant appreciation of the rights of the individual versus the authority of the state. 

-The right to own, use, and dispose of private property according to one's wishes.

-The right to engage in the economic pursuit of your choice.

-The crucial place of the nuclear family in society, including marriage itself. 

-The right of People to live in a sovereign nation.

-The sanctity of life, be it for the youngest, the sickest, or the oldest.

No individual that seeks to grant power to the state to curtail or deny any natural rights is a good person. A Marxist is a nasty, prideful person who wants you and yours to be controlled. A person who wants to live in a Communist-type setting is fine. As long as it does not intrude on the rights if others, he can go and establish one with his buddies.

That is, however, not satisfactory to a Marxist. In his hubris, he wants his view to include everyone. He wants it all, and no one is is exempt from his plans for the subjugation of every individual in the world. 

By the positions to which he holds, a Marxist is a bad person.

Pope Francis will lose more of his flock than he gains by being chummy with Leftists. They who do join will have no interest for any of that (apparently) obsolete sin and redemption stuff.

In Spengler's The Decline of the West, the author (in the early 20th century), predicted this very phenomena. I can't find the exact quote at the moment, but at one point he notes that a church that becomes engrossed in socials issues ceases to be a church.



-




Prohibitions on Describing Race of Saint Nicholas/Santa Claus

The Left will tell you that "Race is a social construct".

That is, unless it is used to denigrate white people, then it's open season. Also, it certainly cannot be used to clarify the ethnic identity of a well-known (and good) individual or character if that means noting that he or she is white.

The Leftist playing the Saul Alinsky game, and this time it is about Santa Claus.

One of Alinky's Rules for Radicals directions is to always, always, ridicule the opposition. That of course is bad enough, but here we have a orchestrated and fully-feigned outrage at the simply act of noting that Santa happens to be a white man.

The sickest claim was that in Megan Kelly's case, one of the attackers, as part of his false accusations, pretended to be under the impression that she was ignorant about the "mythology" of Santa. Others affected to believe that she was racist.

Santa Claus is a name that has its origins is northern Europe, a region which has until very recently been populated almost solely by whites. There has never been a representation of Santa in those regions (which, since he is a character from that region, would be the representations that matter for purposes of identification) that portrays him as anything but a white man. In the country of his birth and life, he was known as  Nicholas of Myra. Myra is in modern-day Turkey, but at the time when he held the office of priest and bishop, that part of Asia was populated by Greeks, Romans, Cappadocians, and other peoples who were all white. There wasn't a single Turk within two thousand miles of that region at the time. Even if this had not been the case, Turks (although many of them certainly have a Mongol admixture), are mostly whites).

There is no historical basis for even pretending that St. Nicholas/Santa Claus could possibly be anything other than a white man.

We are under attack, not for racial issues per se, but for the new crime of speaking factually on the historical fact that someone is white.

This is a time to fight back against the war against truth, a war that employs censorship by fear. 


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/13/megyn-kelly-responds-to-critics-over-santa-is-white-flap/?intcmp=trending

"After touching off a firestorm of controversy [Note that there was no controversy, just some lies] over her suggestion earlier in the week that Santa is white, Megyn Kelly took on her critics Friday, reminding them that her comments were tongue-in-cheek.

“Humor is what we try to bring to this show, but that’s lost on the humorless,” Kelly said on “The Kelly File.” “This would be funny if it were not so telling about our society, in particular, the knee-jerk instinct by so many to race-bait and to assume the worst in people, especially people employed by the very powerful Fox News Channel.”

The backlash began on Wednesday, when Kelly and several guests discussed on “The Kelly File” a Dec. 10 column by Slate writer Aisha Harris entitled “Santa Claus Should Not Be a White Man Anymore.” In the light-hearted piece, Harris suggested a penguin replace St. Nick as a Christmas mascot so as to appeal to children of all races.

“For all you kids watching at home, Santa just is white, but this person is just arguing that maybe we should also have a black Santa,” Kelly said on Wednesday. “But Santa is what he is, and just so you know, we’re just debating this because someone wrote about it.”

In response, pundits blasted Kelly for her supposed ignorance about the mythology surrounding Santa, and some even went so far as to claim she was racist....."

Friday, December 13, 2013

Secular Swiss Target National Anthem

Many of us recall the first time that the American national anthem was denigrated on a TV show.

On the series All in the Family, Archie's son-in-law (The Meathead) was typical of the college-ruined of that era. Having contributed virtually zero in taxes, he nevertheless knew that most of what the United States was needed to be changed. One on occasion, he and Archie were watching the beginning of a baseball game. As the national anthem was being sung, he stated 'That is a terrible song". After Archie -shocked, asked why that was the case, he replied to his father-in-law that it "glorifies war".

The fact that a courageous stand in defense of a key fortification guarding Baltimore - one that defined our new freedom in a very profound manner, would be quite a appropriate choice for a national anthem was utterly repulsive to the new breed of citizen-foreigners. They don't want people thinking about taking a stand, they want them prepared to meekly accept the inevitable - which for a Leftist is worldwide Socialism.

While we slept (or fell down) on the job, the Left was burning the midnight oil for the past 7 decades. They did their job well. This was not only in the US.

Switzerland is nation that embodies the concepts of fervent patriotism, faith, and hard work  It also enjoys a history of staunch defenses of its freedom in the face of a Europe that was swallowing up most smaller states.

A few months ago, I did a post on the attacks on mandatory army service in Switzerland*(at bottom). Now, the anthem of that nation is under attack by radical secularists.

Note the key Leftist form of word-play - the name of the group spearheading the move to change the anthem is the Swiss Society for Public Good. The Left normally makes up new names for their work that will provide the opposite of what it promises (think Land-peace, and bread), but in this case, they appear to have taken leadership positions in a very old organization.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/13/switzerlands-growing-secularism-inspires-search-for-new-national-anthem/

"Some in Switzerland are campaigning to ditch their country’s national anthem — but not because they don’t like the melody of the present tune.

Those who want to do away with “Swiss Psalm” say its spiritually tinged lyrics no longer fit Switzerland’s growing secularism.

“We don’t take issue with the tune, which is quite beautiful,” Jean-Daniel Gerbertold Agence France-Presse.


Gerber is chairman of the Swiss Society for Public Good, a 203-year-old organization that’s behind an unofficial competition launching Jan. 1 to dream up a new national anthem. The first prize is 10,000 Swiss francs ($11,000).

“The problem is the lyrics,” Gerber said. “The author had in mind a psalm, not a national anthem. As a psalm, you have to admit that it’s very good. We have no qualms with it as a psalm, just as an anthem.”

Here are the English lyrics to “Swiss Psalm”:

When the morning skies grow red And o’er their radiance shed, Thou, O Lord, appeareth in their light. When the Alps glow bright with splendour, Pray to God, to Him surrender, For you feel and understand, For you feel and understand, That he dwelleth in this land. That he dwelleth in this land.

In the sunset Thou art nigh And beyond the starry sky, Thou, O loving Father, ever near When to Heaven we are departing, Joy and bliss Thou’lt be imparting, For we feel and understand For we feel and understand That Thou dwellest in this land. That Thou dwellest in this land.

When dark clouds enshroud the hills And gray mist the valley fills, Yet Thou art not hidden from Thy sons. Pierce the gloom in which we cower With Thy sunshine’s cleansing power Then we’ll feel and understand Then we’ll feel and understand That God dwelleth in this land. That God dwelleth in this land.

Towards us in the wild storm coming, You yourself give us resistance and stronghold, You, almighty ruling, rescuing! During horror and nights of thunderstorms Let us childlike trust Him! Yes, we feel and understand; Yes, we feel and understand That God dwelleth in this land. That God dwelleth in this land.


“Nobody knows the words!” Perre Kohler, president of the jury that’s holding the competition, told AFP. “Anyone who tells you they do is a liar. Or else we manage the first few and afterwards we go ‘la, la, la.’”

“You’ve got rolling thunder, radiant mountains. It’s a mix between a weather report and a psalm. That might have been right for its century,” said fellow jury president Oscar Knapp.

“Swiss Psalm” was written by a priest in 1841. The Swiss government made it the nation’s provisional anthem in 1961, then bestowed official status upon it in 1981, AFP reported.

Historian Claude Bonard said changing the anthem is a bad idea.

“Our anthem may not be great. It’s of its time, and times have changed. But change for change’s sake?” Bonard said. “After all, in France, ‘impure blood’ no longer ‘waters the fields,’ but the ‘Marseillaise’ is still the ‘Marseillaise,’” he said, referring to the 18th-century French anthem that emerged during the French revolutionary wars........."


I have often noted that Americans who want to avoid a Socialist US - one that no longer has school or other public holiday celebrations or cultural/religious displays of any nature, where the People are disarmed, with marriage having no meaning whatsoever, the worker being fully enslaved to a crushing  public debt, and having a body of citizens deliberately turned into propagandized illiterates by a ruined primary school system, need to break with the Leftist elements (and their zombies) and form a new republic.

Perhaps the Swiss, along with more of our elder cousins in Western Europe, may have to do the same.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This referendum does not appear likely to succeed on this turn, but again we see the handwriting on the wall. The influence of Cultural Marxism*, the fear that the EU has of a traditionally fiercely independent people, and the concern that a  whole bunch of "assault weapons" in the hands of well-trained private citizens could put up a very good fight to maintain their freedom have come together to threaten a hallowed and fully necessary intuition: 

"On Sunday, the Swiss are voting on a proposal to abolish military conscription in favor of a voluntary army. The country with no clear foes and a long tradition of neutrality could find better ways of spending money than playing at war, proponents say.

Switzerland, once a proud supplier of mercenaries for numerous wars in Europe, has maintained a policy of armed neutrality for the last five centuries. It isn’t a member of any defense pacts and wasn’t even member of the United Nations until 2002. But it has an army of 150,000, the size of Austria’s, Belgium’s, Norway’s, Finland’s and Sweden’s armies combined.

Under Swiss law, all able-bodied males must take part in compulsory military service between the ages of 18 and 34. This comprises 18 to 21 weeks of basic training and further yearly refresher courses lasting 19 days. Senior officers may have to serve up to the age of 50 and spend more than twice as much time on army duty than ordinary recruits........

The military is also the cornerstone of the Swiss militia, which has a role similar to the National Guard in the US. Those in the army help civilian authorities and respond to natural disasters and other major events. Many continue helping society as volunteers after retiring from the service by joining the fire service, participating in local politics. or serving other public duties.

However, there are plenty who see
 [Read maliciously label] military traditions as an expensive anachronism, which is no longer necessary. The pacifist Group for Switzerland without an Army (GSoA) has gathered the 100,000 signatures necessary to put their abolition proposal to a national referendum..........."


Here we see what decades of Leftist propaganda will do to a people - get them to think poorly of a key institution and render their nation weaker, convince them to shirk national service, andhave them prefer the thought of being controlled rather than checking the power of the state to control the People:

"GSoA, which has been campaigning against obligatory army service since 1982, argues that the country located in the heart of Europe doesn’t need big military firepower to protect itself and that a purely voluntary force would suffice. It criticizes conscription, which excludes Swiss women and disrupts study and work for men, costing an estimated $4.3 billion to the economy annually.

"Not everyone has time to play war," declares the GSoA campaign poster.........."


As the nation loses her older citizens, the vote tallies will change in subsequent referendums.

Sunday’s vote is not expected to go in favor of the GSoA. A survey by Swiss television in August revealed that 40 per cent of respondents would reject the initiative, with another 17 per cent leaning that way. The support for the military is particularly strong in the older generations, with 68 per cent of those over 65 opposing the initiative. Less than a third of Swiss people support the proposal.

“Switzerland needs an army,” says Jakob Büchler of the Christian Democrat Party (CVP), a member of the National Council, which rejected the initiative as cited by The Local. “We are a small country, we are a neutral country, and we are a country that isn’t in any defense alliances. We have to therefore organize our own defense and security ourselves, and that’s why we need an army.”

Opponents of the initiative fear that there won’t be enough volunteers for military service and Switzerland would then have to start a costly change to a professional army......"


The Socialist behemoth that is the EU would certainly want the Swiss Army turned into an instrument of a state that can be influenced rather than a force made up of the People that can withstand an eventual sovereignty-destroying absorption into the EU . The claims in the article that the current system it too expensive do not hold water - Switzerland is not a poor nation by any means, and professional armies always wind up being very expensive in the end. Training the entire People to function as an effective reserve force is a very cheap means of providing a solid defense. 

The People who banded together to push out the Hapsburgs and somehow maintain a small but independent nation in the middle of a Europe that was in the business of consolidation - and later deterred Hitler from invading, must be rolling over in their graves.




Thursday, December 12, 2013

Syrian Bishop Calls for Christians to Defend Themselves


Hat tip to Gates of Vienna.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/12/a-call-for-christians-to-defend-themselves/


The Christians of Syria have played the role sheep among a pack of wolves for too long.

http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/sections/politics/2013/12/10/Syria-Orthodox-bishop-press-Christians-take-up-arms-_9755998.html

"ANSAmed) - BEIRUT- A Greek Orthodox Syrian bishop invited young Christians to take up arms to defend "the homeland" and the Christian presence in Syria.

In an interview published on the website of Panarab-Iraqi newspaper Azzaman, and republished Tuesday morning in several Middle Eastern media outlets, Bishop Luqa al-Khoury said, "Every Christian youth capable of taking up arms, should do so and defend Syria [...] Christians are prayerful and peaceful, but it seems that today, faced with these people, prayer and peace aren't enough anymore." The Syrian bishop confirmed his stance on Libyan TV's LBC, saying that declarations attributed to him by Azzaman weren't correct, but that,
"in this situation, all methods of self-defense are legitimate."  Al-Khoury added, "Syrian Christians won't leave Syria of their own will, because they are attached to their land.

Christians and Muslims have been living (in Syria) for over 1,600 years [...] Syrian Christians aren't afraid even though the main goal of those who target the churches is to attack Christians's historic identity." (ANSAmed)."


I am not sure if the good bishop was in fact misquoted or if he feared that his call to arms would bring retaliatory attacks by Obama's beloved Jihadists on his flock, but I was still quite impressed by his clarification that "in this situation, all methods of self-defense are legitimate.". 

I hope that Syrian Christians respond to this message in a favorable manner. I would love to see the news reports in the Western media if Western Christians left their homes to help their embattled coreligionists. While Muslims who travel to decapitate captured army personnel and  terrorize civilians  in other countries are euphemistically referred to as :"freedom fighters", Christians who may travel to protect a terribly oppressed people would no doubt be labeled as "foreign mercenaries" - even if they receive no monetary compensation whatsoever. 

I have no doubt that the Western media will take one of two options in regards to this report. The first and most likely choice will be to ignore it. The second will be to accuse the bishop of making things worse. 

Any attempt by non-Muslims to defend themselves against their oppressors is willfully misrepresented by the media as "sectarian violence" or "ethnic tensions"*.  As long as non-Muslims are being victimized, everything is OK. 



It is not only Christians who get the blame; Buddhists too are labeled as hate-mongers or "Nazis" for daring to protect their own against Islamic aggression.


Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Report - Obama Lied About Syrian Sarin Attack

Hat tip to New Jersey Patriot.
http://newjerseypatriotblog.newjerseypatriot.us/?p=3133

During the mad weeks in August - September of this year, the Obama administration worked overtime to convince the world that the only possible suspects in the August nerve gas attack belonged to the Syrian government*. Ignoring the strong likelihood that it was actually the Syrian rebels who used Sarin in order to accuse the Syrian army and thus bring about an attack from Western nations, Obama and his stooges repeatedly claimed that they knew who committed the attack.

Well, it turns out that they may well have known who were the probable culprits, they just lied about who those culprits actually were. 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/9/obama-lied-about-syrian-chemical-attack-cherry-pic/

"The Obama administration quashed intelligence reports that suggested an al Qaeda-linked group could have been responsible for the sarin gas attack carried out in Syria last August, according to a news report published in London on Sunday.
In threatening a U.S. military strike on Syria during the weeks that followed after the Aug. 21 chemical attack, President Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry cited “definitive” evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad had been responsible for the incident.

What they kept secret, according to an article by Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, was the belief of U.S. spy agencies that military forces loyal to Mr. Assad were not ones in Syria’s civil war to have access to sarin.

“In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal ‘Operations Order’ — a planning document that precedes a ground invasion — citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al Qaeda, had master the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity,” Mr. Hersh wrote in the London Review of Books.

The al-Nusra Front was officially designated a “foreign terrorist organization by the Obama administration last year and should have been a suspect, according to the Hersh article.

Instead, in order to solidify a White House narrative that Mr. Assad had crossed Mr. Obama’s “red line” by using chemical weapons, the Obama administration “cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad,” the article claims.

While Mr. Hersh’s assessment could be read as providing backing for Russian claims that the Syrian rebels were behind the deadly August attack, the article has drawn a harsh dismisal from at least one key source in the U.S. intelligence community......"

Of course, the article also notes that a, intelligence official denies the entire claim and insists that all intelligence reports pointed to the Syrian government as the only body in that nation that possessed the ability to manufacture or deploy chemical weapons. 

-and we are supposed to believe that.

If we took all of the obvious lies, along with all suspected ones, of all the previous presidential administrations in the US prior to 2008, added them up, and compared that number to those of the last four-plus years, I would bet that the former number would be the equivalent of a drop in the bucket.

Never before in the history of the world has the media of a nation, with no threat of imprisonment, voluntarily and enthusiastically made itself an arm of the Chief Executive. They have done nothing to seriously investigate any of the lies and criminal acts of this administration.. The Leftist mentality holds that the desired end result is so worthwhile that no amount suffering or death is too much if these are means to that end. That's why they ignore the tens of millions who died under Marxist rule throughout the world, and this is why they ignore cancer patients who have lost their insurance polices under Obamacare. They ignore the lies that Obama and his henchmen told to bring us to war to establish an Islamist government for the same reason. We have more Enemies of  Humanity in our media and schools than we can count.


*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/09/more-reports-of-obama-setup-of-syrian.html

*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/08/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-gas-un.html

*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/09/putins-open-letter-bruises-hearts-of.html



http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/03/syrian-alawite-women-and-children-now.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/07/syrian-christian-girl-gang-raped-for.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/08/syrian-church-destroyed-looted.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/09/obama-pressuring-congress-on-syria.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/09/sen-lindsey-graham-no-syria-strike.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/09/obama-will-aid-anti-us-terror-groups.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/09/syria-analystswindler-hired-by-mccain.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/09/syrian-town-cleansed-of-non-sunnis.html


Tuesday, December 10, 2013

NY Appellate Court Upholds Journalist's Right to Protect Source

- an increasingly rare instance of good news:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/10/new-york-top-court-rules-fox-reporter-cannot-be-forced-to-reveal-sources-in/?intcmp=trending

"New York's top court today spared FoxNews.com reporter Jana Winter from jail for refusing to reveal confidential sources for a bombshell story following the Aurora movie massacre.

In a 4-3 ruling based on New York's shield law, the state Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's decision that could have resulted in Winter being forced to appear in the Colorado murder trial of James Holmes.

"... an order from a New York court directing a reporter to appear in another state where, as here, there is a substantial likelihood that she will be compelled to identify sources who have been promised confidentiality would offend our strong public policy," the decision, handed down Tuesday, read.

The ruling spares Winter from appearing before Arapahoe County District Court Judge Carlos Samour Jr. on Jan. 3, where she would have been ordered to reveal who told her about a chilling notebook gunman James Holmes sent to his psychiatrist before the shooting in July 2012. Winter's exclusive story on July 25, 2012, was picked up by news outlets around the world. Winter had steadfastly vowed that she would go to jail rather than reveal her sources for the story.

"Today's ruling is a major win for all journalists," said Fox News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes. "The protection of Jana Winter's confidential sources was necessary for the survival of journalism and democracy as a whole. We are very grateful that the highest court in New York State agreed with our position."

Winter's lead attorney, Dori Ann Hanswirth, said the veteran journalist was finally freed from the specter of jail, which had hung over her head for more than a year. She said journalists must be able to afford their sources protection if they are to serve the public interest......"

Even though I had read about the New York State "shield law" a few months ago, I still was concerned about the outcome of this case. Judges in our era are far-too-often willing to bend to political pressure. In this particular case, I sensed that a lot of powerful people wanted the source divulged. 

Slaughters committed by firearms, unlike other violent acts (and urban gun crime), are choice selections of the political establishment. I hold that the Arapahoe Country judge may well have been under pressure from many Colorado legislators and prosecutors/district attorneys to locate the source of the leak and make sure that no one else even considered doing the same in the future. 

Colorado, was the second state to enact severely. restrictive gun laws after the sandy Hook slaughter. The first weapons ban that followed, in New York State, was directed primarily towards the actual types of firearms and magazines, but Colorado legislators created a law that had far greater restrictions and implications. From what I understand of the new legislation, the act of handing a rifle to a friend who was visiting someone in order to hunt (or target shoot) on his private property became an illegal act.
  
The anti-gun lobby wants to have us believe that no one can ever tell when someone will pick up a weapon and ammunition and commence to murdering people - that position is one of their reasons that they cite to justify further restrictions. The existence of a news report that the Aurora slaughter, one of their flagship cases that they use to advance the cause to disarmament, is a serious blow to their agenda as we now know that this horrific indecent had a tangible chain of events leading up to it. They can no longer cite the Aurora case while feeling free that their "proofs" cannot be refuted. 



Monday, December 9, 2013

Reps from 32 States Discuss Article V Convention

This is a follow-up to earlier posts*. The very fact that the movement has progressed to this point in so short a time is very promising.

*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/07/article-v-conventions-proposed-some.html

"......Mr. Levin [Who popularized this movement earlier in 2013] rightfully notes that, two-thirds of the states make this move, and the proposed amendment(s) are passed by three quarters of the states, then Congress, The Supreme Court, and and President would literally be powerless to prevent them from being added to our Constitution and by extension becoming the Law of of the land.

In the Western Free Press link [In the link at top of the post linked above] , Levin speaks in an embedded video. He stresses that George Mason, (Note that Mason was by no means a supporter of the Constitution when it was a new and unratified document as he feared its potential for abuse), was indeed a strong supporter of this alternative means by which the states could work together to restrain or correct a national government (Ours is only Federal in name - credit Tocqueville for that observation) and take steps to put the nation back on the right path."....."

*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/11/article-v-conventions-get-some-serious.html

*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/12/left-feels-some-heat-from-article-v.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Post-

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/09/gaining-steam-nearly-100-lawmakers-descend-on-mount-vernon-to-talk-convention-of-states/

"Close to 100 legislators from 32 states met in Mount Vernon, Va., Saturday to discuss the possibility of adding amendments to the U.S. Constitution through a convention of the states.

Such a convention, as outlined in article five of the Constitution, would allow state legislatures to vote on amendments to add."



"Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."


"No constitutional amendment has been added this way, but some say the Constitution specifically allows for states to use the convention as a means to push back against the federal government.

Two-thirds of the state legislatures, or 34, must approve an application for a convention to occur, according to the Constitution’s article five. State legislatures would then send delegates to the convention, each state getting one vote on proposed amendments. For an amendment to pass and become a part of the Constitution, it would have to be approved by three-fourths, or 38, of the state legislatures."

"Lawmakers on Saturday discussed term limits on U.S. lawmakers and certain limits on federal taxation and spending as possible amendments, Red Millennial noted.

State legislators stressed Saturday the bipartisan nature of support for the discussed amendments, citing a recent poll that shows 74 percent of Americans support a balanced budget amendment while another 75 percent support congressional term limits......"

- another quick excerpt from a post I did last week:

....I hold that the possible danger of a bad outcome of such a convention pales in comparison to what is actually occurring - and what we appear to be unable to stop, right now. In other words, this is a classic case of having nothing to lose. We either take steps that have a good chance of success, or face failure due to inaction. If the Article V conventions are held and they produce poor results, we will be no worse off than we are now - and will be if we do nothing......


For New Jersey readers,  you can email the host of the blog linked below and he will help you get the right contacts for that state. 


These links may be of help to others who are searching for contacts from their respective states:

http://www.articlevcaucus.com/about (You can sign up as a member on this site) 













Sunday, December 8, 2013

Short Maccabees Post

The arrival of snow put a big dent in my plans today. I had to move quite a bit of split firewood into a pile in order to cover it. I also brought a substantial amount close to the house on a patio that has a roof.

I don't have time for a proper post on the Maccabees, so a re-post will have to suffice:

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/10/netanyahu-tells-un-family-story-un-to.html


At the end of the Babylonian exile (some time after the destruction of the Babylonian Empire) the Jews had been allowed to return to their homes under Persian rule. When Alexander the Great defeated Darius II, the Jews lived free of molestation under his rule and for the most part continued to do so under the Macedonian successor kingdom of the Seleucids.

As the power of the Seleucid state later waned, a king named Antiochus Epiphanes decided that, to solidify the power of the weakening kingdom, he needed to end the ethnic, religious, and cultural identities of hitherto somewhat autonomous peoples. The Jews, although they had absorbed a number of Hellenistic cultural practices but remained quite distinct with their ancient religion, were targeted for forced acceptance of all religious practices of the Macedonian rulers.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Maccabees.html

"A brief Jewish rebellion only hardened his views and led him to outlaw central tenets ofJudaism such as the Sabbath and circumcision, and defile the holy Temple by erecting an altar to the god Zeus, allowing the sacrifice of pigs, and opening the shrine to non-Jews."


More gruesome details are included in the First and Second Books of Maccabees. One example follows. Note how the brothers and their anguish-ridden mother refuse even to speak Greek when addressing their tormentor

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4353562
" 2 Mac.7[1]

It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine's flesh.
[2] One of them, acting as their spokesman, said, "What do you intend to ask and learn from us? For we are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our fathers."
[3]


The king fell into a rage, and gave orders that pans and caldrons be heated.
[4] These were heated immediately, and he commanded that the tongue of their spokesman be cut out and that they scalp him and cut off his hands and feet, while the rest of the brothers and the mother looked on.
[5] When he was utterly helpless, the king ordered them to take him to the fire, still breathing, and to fry him in a pan. The smoke from the pan spread widely, but the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying,
[6] "The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us, as Moses declared in his song which bore witness against the people to their faces, when he said, `And he will have compassion on his servants.'"
[7]

After the first brother had died in this way, they brought forward the second for their sport. They tore off the skin of his head with the hair, and asked him, "Will you eat rather than have your body punished limb by limb?"
[8] He replied in the language of his fathers, and said to them, "No." Therefore he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done.
[9] And when he was at his last breath, he said, "You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws." 
[10]

After him, the third was the victim of their sport. When it was demanded, he quickly put out his tongue and courageously stretched forth his hands,
[11] and said nobly, "I got these from Heaven, and because of his laws I disdain them, and from him I hope to get them back again." 

[12] As a result the king himself and those with him were astonished at the young man's spirit, for he regarded his sufferings as nothing.
[13]

When he too had died, they maltreated and tortured the fourth in the same way.
[14] And when he was near death, he said, "One cannot but choose to die at the hands of men and to cherish the hope that God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!" 

[15]

Next they brought forward the fifth and maltreated him.
[16] But he looked at the king, and said, "Because you have authority among men, mortal though you are, you do what you please. But do not think that God has forsaken our people.
[17] Keep on, and see how his mighty power will torture you and your descendants!" 

[18]

After him they brought forward the sixth. And when he was about to die, he said, "Do not deceive yourself in vain. For we are suffering these things on our own account, because of our sins against our own God. Therefore astounding things have happened.
[19] But do not think that you will go unpunished for having tried to fight against God!"

[20]

The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord.
[21] She encouraged each of them in the language of their fathers. Filled with a noble spirit, she fired her woman's reasoning with a man's courage, and said to them,
[22] "I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you.
[23] Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws." 

[24]


Antiochus felt that he was being treated with contempt, and he was suspicious of her reproachful tone. The youngest brother being still alive, Antiochus not only appealed to him in words, but promised with oaths that he would make him rich and enviable if he would turn from the ways of his fathers, and that he would take him for his friend and entrust him with public affairs.
[25] Since the young man would not listen to him at all, the king called the mother to him and urged her to advise the youth to save himself. 
[26] After much urging on his part, she undertook to persuade her son.
[27] But, leaning close to him, she spoke in their native tongue as follows, deriding the cruel tyrant: "My son, have pity on me. I carried you nine months in my womb, and nursed you for three years, and have reared you and brought you up to this point in your life, and have taken care of you. 
[28] I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.
[29] Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers." 
[30]


While she was still speaking, the young man said, "What are you waiting for? I will not obey the king's command, but I obey the command of the law that was given to our fathers through Moses.............

The king fell into a rage, and handled him worse than the others, being exasperated at his scorn.
[40] So he died in his integrity, putting his whole trust in the Lord.
[41]

Last of all, the mother died, after her sons."


The revolt led by Judas Maccabeus (The Hammer) was shockingly successful given the power of Macedonian/Hellenistic armies of that time. Their guerrilla tactics were so successful that the king sent ever larger forces against the Jews. These were dealt crippling defeats.

The war lasted around ten years, culminating with Jewish independence.

With that in mind, please watch Netanyahu's speech [In the link at top] he described the state of mind of his grandfather as he collected his thoughts after being beaten.





Saturday, December 7, 2013

Baker Ordered by Judge to Serve Gay Weddings

The following are links to previous posts on the increasing lawlessness of our society regarding the exercising of one's conscience.

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/02/baker-refuses-cake-for-fake-wedding.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/04/washington-state-sues-florist-for-gay.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/05/submit-to-gay-weddings-or-lose-your.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/08/photographer-found-to-violate-human.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/08/gay-marriage-supporters-launch-hate.html

The lawlessness is not only the product of the mob, but has also has come to be a work of our courts and legislators. Mob violence and despotic laws may be bad enough, but when the courts uphold the end of the Rule of Law itself, the People are left with no other option than to effect a political break with the hostile elements of our society and forge a new republic.

One of the vendors that faced charges for reusing to make a cake for a "wedding" - the very nature of which runs contrary to her beliefs, has lost in court in Colorado. When the courts uphold despotic laws, or the despotic interpretation of existing discrimination laws, we become a lawless society - one in which the Rule of Law has no meaning whatsoever*.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/06/judge-orders-baker-to-serve-gay-couples-despite-his-religious-beliefs/

"A Colorado judge says a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs, a ruling that a civil rights group hailed as a victory for gay rights.

Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled Friday that Jack Phillips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, will face fines if he continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy wedding cakes.

“The undisputed facts show that Respondents (Phillips) discriminated against Complainants because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage,” Spencer wrote.

Last year, David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited the Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. The couple had planned to marry in Massachusetts and hold a reception in Colorado.

Phillips told the men that he could not bake their cake because of his religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage. He offered to make them any other baked item, but not a wedding cake. The couple immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division......"


[The ACLU has sided with the despots and against freedom of conscience]

"The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado hailed the ruling and said it serves as a warning.
“While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” ACLU staff attorney Amanda Goad said in a statement. “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owners to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.

Phillips was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal firm specializing in religious liberty cases. Attorney Nicolle Martin condemned the judge’s ruling.

“America was founded on the fundamental freedom of every citizen to live and work according to their beliefs,” Martin said in a prepared statement. “Forcing Americans to promote ideas against their will undermines our constitutionally protected freedom of expression and our right to live free.”

Martin said this was simply a case of a baker who declined to use his personal creative abilities to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony.

“If the government can take aware our First Amendment freedoms, there is nothing it can’t take away,” she said.

Martin added that Phillips is a devoted Christian who has an unwavering faith. She said he is a person of such deep faith that he won’t even bake Halloween-themed treats – at all.

“He’s just trying to live within a certain set of biblical principals because he believes that he answers to God for everything that he does,” Martin told Fox News.

She said this case is an example of gay rights trumping religious rights.

“It sends a message not just to other business owners, it sends a message to Americans – that if the government can take away our First amendment freedoms and tell you what to say and when to say it, there’s nothing they can’t take away,” Martin told Fox News......"


Excerpts from previous posts on the same subject:

In the United States, the velvet-covered glove on the totalitarian fist will not send one to the gulags or consign the accused to a bullet in the head by one of Beria's henchmen, but you will be ruined financially. Today, if you have any desire to avoid comprising your beliefs or your integrity, you are left with no option but to shut yourself up inside your own home - one that you will not be likely to afford since you will have very few employment options.

Unlike the other cases noted above, which are linked below, this New Mexico case should make one realize how dreadful the situation has become. In the others, the cases are in their early stages. This case, though has gone as far as it can within the State of New Mexico. The Supreme Court of that state has declared that a citizen has no right of discretion whatsoever. With this precedent, I find it hard to argue that anyone has the right to refuse to participate in anything that runs contrary to his beliefs. A baker will now likely be prohibited from refusing to make a cake with writing stating that God does not exist. The radical gay agenda appears to be the most vindictive and intolerant movement that this nation has seen in a very long time...........

........if vendors refuse to sell to gays simply due to the customer's sexual practices, then they clearly would be in violation of the law. What Washington State wants is to expand the scope of laws protecting people from discrimination to force anyone who operates a business to engage in actions that may be completely contrary to one's principles.

Nazism is not illegal in the US. If a member of a neo-Nazi Party walks into a store owned by a Jewish person, or anyone else for that matter, and orders a product or service custom-made for Hitler's birthday, then the vendor should certainly be within his rights to refuse to fill that order. A vendor cannot refuse service simply because of someone's affiliations, but the law cannot rightly be held to force a vendor to participate in an event for that organization.

Want something less severe? OK, how about a vendor that refuses to make t-shirts sponsoring a Harbor Seal hunt? The vendor would not be able to refuse to make t-shirts with other messages/logos for a customer solely due to his grisly occupation, but the law again cannot be used to force someone to take actions that would effectively make one complicit in the smashing of little seal heads.

This is how the State crushes the liberties of the people- making you powerless to stand up in any way for your principles. Tying this method of control to one's occupation is the most oppressive means of doing so.
The Left needs to turn the people into slaves who have no say whatsoever in what they say, learn, or produce. As I noted in previous posts, measures such as this one are only the beginning. Soon, speaking publicly against fake marriages will be illegal. Next, Churches will be penalized for refusing to perform fake weddings. They will either lose their tax-exempt status or their authority to officiate recognized weddings altogether. If this happens, a married couple will, after a church wedding, have to schlep down to town hall to have a civil ceremony if they want their marriage recognized by the state.

One must keep in mind that governments do not have creative powers. They cannot bring rights into existence. The State is given the power to regulate and protect institutions such as marriage to prevent abuses. These would include underage brides, one spouse who is still legally married to another, etc.

Marriage existed long before any government; therefore a government cannot,despite any legislative hoop-jumping, create the legality of a marriage that, by its very nature, cannot exist. Any law that presents itself as such is nothing more than play-acting by the State.

I once believed that the primary reason for using statutory powers to pretend that same-sex marriages exist was to destroy the family While I still believe that this is the primary purpose for some, I have come to think that others have a more insidious purpose for this.

-The purpose is to establish full governmental control of society and all of its people.

Think about it. If the State can force people to act as if a government can bring the impossible into existence, and force everyone to go along with it, then what is it incapable of doing or forcing? If a society accepts that the State can conjure up institutions by going through the motions of making laws, what can stop them from removing rights or creating others that infringe on the Liberties of the rest of the people?
*Friedrich A. Hayek, the author of The Road to Serfdom was able to - during WWII, successfully predicted much of what would happen in the Western Democracies as types of central planning, restrictions of Liberty, and the end of the Rule and Law and the increase in coercion. had already begun but had not reached near the level that we see today. I find that his foresight was every bit as harp as that of Edmund Burke in his Reflections on the Revolution in France. 

Hayek was mostly concerned with economic freedom, but what he notes also rings true when applied to our situation today. These are excerpts from paper that gives a very good introduction:


"―Where the precise effects of government
policy on particular people are known, where the government aims directly at such
particular effects, it cannot help knowing these effects, and therefore it cannot be
impartial..........

. In such a situation, Hayek argued, government ―must, of
necessity, take sides, impose its valuations upon people and, instead of assisting them in
the advancement of their own ends, chose the ends for them
(RS, p. 115).
Knowledge of specific effects of law at the time the law is being made has an
impact both on the law and on the government. When law is made with these particular
effects in mind ―it ceases to be a mere instrument to be used by the people and becomes
instead an instrument used by the lawgiver upon the people and for his ends‖ rather than
for the various ends chosen by various individuals (RS, p. 115). Likewise, the nature of
government changes when specific effects rather than a general framework of laws are
sought. ―The state ceases to be a piece of utilitarian machinery intended to help
individuals in the fullest development of their individual personality and becomes a
‗moral‘ institution—where ‗moral‘ is not used in contrast to immoral but describes an Ealy, Hayek on the Rule of Law, p. 13
institution which imposes on its members its views on all moral questions.........
..



Pursuit of substantive equality in effect destroys the Rule of Law because to achieve substantive equality the government must abandon its position of impartiality—―To produce the same result for different people, it is necessary to treat them differently‖ (RS, p. 117). At a minimum, such differential action on the part of government destroys the legal framework of general laws which allow individuals to predict government action and
shape their choices with that knowledge in mind......."



Tomorrow, I hope to do a post on the Maccabean revolt of the Jews against their Macedonian oppressors who sought to bury their religion, culture and sense of identity as a People.