• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

ON THE LEFT, IT IS ALL HYSTERIA, ALL THE TIME

by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

I have been observing politics for a long time, and have never seen anything like the present moment. The Democrats have dialed the hysteria meter up to 12, and absolutely everything is a crisis. One type of faux crisis is particularly transparent. It is exemplified by the Left’s current fit over net neutrality, a policy that few understand and, I think, fewer still have much reason to care about. But leftists have figured out their messaging, as reflected in this absurd headline in today’s Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Whatever the FCC did, it certainly did not “overturn equal internet access.” Rather, the internet will be as it was in 2015 and in all previous years. Do you recall any problem with equal access to the internet before the introduction of “net neutrality” two years ago? No, neither do I. “Net neutrality” was a solution in search of a problem. Yet Democrats reportedly have been making death threats against the children of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.

A similar case, in a completely different realm, is that of the Bears Ears [Ed.: Sorry about Bears End, that was spell check.] National Monument. Bears Ears is not a monument in any normal sense; it comprises over 2,000 square miles in southern Utah, more than twice the area of the State of Rhode Island. The Trump administration’s Interior Department has reduced the size of the Bears Ears monument to a more manageable 201,876 acres–still really big for a monument–and the Left has gone bonkers.

The clothing company Patagonia, for example, sued the Trump administration to prevent its order from going into effect.

[Patagonia] replaced its usual home page with a stark message, “The President Stole Your Land.” The California-based company called Trump’s actions illegal and described Monday’s action as the largest elimination of protected land in American history.

But here’s the thing: There was no Bears Ears national monument until December 28, 2016, when President Obama created it by presidential proclamation less than two weeks before he left office. The Trump administration’s order restores the status quo as of December 27, 2016, only with a 201,876 acre “monument.” In a sane world, no one would try to make the case that this represents some kind of outrage, let alone something illegal. The Democrats say that President Obama can create national monuments, but President Trump can’t shrink them. That is consistent with the Democrats’ mantra: Some elections have consequences, others don’t.

The Democrats obviously think that breaking the hysteria meter is working for them, and they could turn out to be right. But by any sane standard, they are making fools of themselves.”

Note by Glenn:  Hysteria is a fundamental weapon of Leftist propaganda, used both in content and in emotion.   We must always remember the vast inherent differences between the human female and human male animals.   The “HE” is by Nature born a killer, a hunter, a builder, a protector, a defender, an explorer, a learner,  a problem solver, and to be profoundly curious.

The “SHE” is born ditsy  by Nature, driven  to seek peace, comfort, and quiet, safety, security and the skill of lure to find  some environment and male by which she is to become “housed”, protected  to bear the human offspring and tend to their upbringing for  the first ten or so years  to continue the existence of the species…….

Today  the insanity from the propaganda, the preachings and teachings spread by today’s knowledgeless leftist university and leftist news sources and their sales folks and products pretend human beings  generally  and  politically exist as only one sex,  the femalish,  believing there are no significant  differences between the human male and human female in today’s twenty first century.

Hysteria  is the primary reaction of the human female animal to be used whenever she is or feels threatened.   The “SHE” screams, the noise of which declares, “I’m in trouble!”, a call to her mate or males of the species  programmed to come to her defense.

Our America, over  the past generation,  has been sinking into a leftist Democrat Party political quicksand of feminism, a common disorder in our day among the Democrat forever equal Political Party under  human female leadership of all sexes, colors, shapes and sizes, preaching, dictating that there are no real sexual differences among their human “leftist forever born”.

Today, feminist hysteria has come to be a popular ceremonial ritual advanced by Leftist  American human animals of all sexes to  replace the  old-time  primitive,  arrogant, deplorable  human male habit of  problem solving.

Advertisements

Leftist Saboteurs Strzok and Page Caught Within Our FBI

STRZOK-PAGE TEXTS SHOW HATRED OF TRUMP BY THE TWO EX-TEAM MUELLER MEMBERS

by Paul Mirengoff  at PowerLine:

“The Washington Examiner has obtained hundreds of text messages between Peter Strzok — the agent on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team who was demoted for critical messages about President Trump — and his alleged mistress Lisa Page, a lawyer also assigned to the probe. The messages were provided by the Justice Department to congressional committees.

As described by the Examiner’s Kelly Cohen, the text messages show a couple whose hatred of Trump ran deep. For example, in March 2016, Page texted Strzok, “God trump is a loathsome human.” Strzok replied, “Yet he may win.”

In July, during the Republican National Convention, Strzok and Page goaded each other to watch it. “TURN IT ON, TURN IT ON!!! THE DOUCHEBAGS ARE ABOUT TO COME OUT,” Strzok wrote to Page. She replied moments later: “And wow, Donald Trump is an enormous d*uche.”

The next day, Strzok wanted Page’s impressions. “Hi. How was Trump, other than a douche?” he wondered. Page replied: ““Trump barely spoke, but the first thing out of his mouth was ‘we’re going to win sooo big.’ The whole thing is like living in a bad dream.”

Later in this particular hate fest, Strzok confessed to being “panicked” about the election.

After Trump get into it with Gold Star father Khizr Khan, Page and Strzok became even more nasty. Page wrote: “Jesus. You should read this [article about the dispute]. And Trump should go f himself.”
Strzok replied, “God that’s a great article. Thanks for sharing. And F Trump.”

In August, as Trump continued to hang with Hillary in the polls, Strzok asked Page: “What the hell has happened to our country!?!?!??” He also “worried about what Trump is encouraging in our behavior.”

And so on.

The text messages speak for themselves. I would just add that the view of Trump expressed in these messages, and the language used to express them, are standard among the lawyer and government worker class in Washington, D.C. In the Summer and Fall of 2016, I doubt that a week went by in which I didn’t hear them expressed. And I tried to avoid liberals during that period.

I believe the Page-Strzok hatred of Donald Trump is just the tip of the Team Mueller iceberg.”

Comey-Rosenstein FBI-Gate Explosion Meets the Press!

Coming attractions: How the biggest political scandal in history will play out in 2018

by Thomas Lifson   at  American Thinker:

“A lot of frustration has been expressed – on these pages and elsewhere – over the slow pace of progress in unraveling the Deep State coup against Trump.  But “the process of uncovering the worst political scandal in American history,” as I called it a couple of days ago, needs to be done the right way, or else it will founder under the waves of abuse that will pour from the media and political branches of the establishment.  Not only must legal niceties be observed, but the rollout of information must be undertaken with a strategy in mind.  Each step builds on the previous and addresses the probable response.

When Rod Rosenstein evaded the answers being sought in a congressional hearing and deferred to the inspector general investigation underway, I thought it a reasonable response, even though Rosenstein is now a hate-object for having appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel.  The I.G., Michael E. Horowitz, is no political stooge.  (For background on the inspectors general, see Ed Lasky here and here.  There are unsung heroes of our constitutional republic among them, hero-federal bureaucrats.)

And letting any of the I.G.’s cats out of the bag early could have serious consequences.

Sundance of Conservative Treehouse has a must-read column today, analyzing the pattern of disclosures from the I.G.  In Sundance’s words, “It looks just like a prosecutor laying out his case.”

Consider what is at stake; and further consider that you were given the task of revealing the outcome of an investigation of such consequence.  How would you introduce the findings to the larger U.S. electorate?   Given the timing of the releases from the IG’s investigation, I think that’s what we are seeing in the past two weeks.  A prosecutor laying out his case over the course of multiple media cycles. …

There is a pattern in the released OIG information and how we retrieve it from the media.

♦Ahead of FBI Director Christopher Wray appearing before congress the IG released the information about FBI Agent Strzok and his mistress FBI/DOJ Attorney Lisa Page.

♦Just before Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe was going to appear before congress the IG released information about DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie Ohr.

Andrew McCabe ducked out of the hearing, and will now appear next week. Boy-oh-boy that one should be interesting.  If he’s still employed. (anticipating more releases here)

♦Just before DOJ Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein appeared before congress the IG released the actual text messaging information from Agent Strzok and Lisa Page.

See the pattern?

Sundance lays out what I have been thinking of as a story arc, the broad picture of where this can be expected to develop, given the facts as we know them at the moment.  I am always conscious that President Trump is a master showman with a specialty in reality TV.  He thinks in terms of story arcs.

The OIG is laying out the case for further inquiry, investigation and more importantly questioning, of each of the aforementioned officials. …

[T]he IG is laying out his prosecutable case before the American public via TV and congressional appearances.  In my humble opinion none of this is accidental.  This is strategic white hat distribution of material that is immensely important to the larger U.S. electorate.   The subject matter is so consequential, it needs to be absorbed in small digestible portions.

We should be hearing from the I.G. in the early part of next year, in time for this to start to unfold in TV prior to the November midterm elections.

Sundance looks ahead the next couple of steps, toward prosecution, and follows the potential chain upward.  Momentum, and consequently timing, is critical because of the expected all-out resistance.  Watergate was nothing compared to this.

Rosenstein Faces Trey Gowdy in Comey FBI Corruption Case

TREY GOWDY GRILLS ROD ROSENSTEIN

by Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine:

Scott has posted video of Rep. Jim Jordan questioning Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein today. I want to share Rep. Trey Gowdy’s questioning of Rosenstein.

Gowdy sets things up by noting that the only reason for the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller is the desire to have a fair, unbiased, “conflict of interest free” investigation. He then cites substantial reasons to doubt that members of Mueller’s team (past and present) are unbiased and conflict free.

Rosenstein replies that if members of Mueller’s team act improperly or show bias in their work, they will be removed, as Peter Strzok was. Frankly, I don’t believe this.

In any event, Rosenstein’s response is inadequate on its face. Attorney General Sessions could have run this investigation, with the promise that he would be removed if found (by the DOJ inspector general, for example) to have acted improperly or showed bias. This wouldn’t have been deemed adequate assurance of fairness by Democrats and some Republicans.

At this point, with all we have learned, similar assurances about Team Mueller aren’t adequate either.

 

 

Getting to Know Fascism and Nazis Better to Recognize Today’s Dems

Adam Smith is the father of capitalism and Karl Marx is the father of Marxism, but who created fascism? Historians have largely tried to erase Giovanni Gentile from history to avoid confronting the actual roots of fascism.

Watch Dinesh D’Souza’s latest video for PragerU to find out the hidden truth about Gentile and fascism now.

Gentile thought Liberal Democracy was too centered on liberty and individual rights and was therefore too selfish. For Gentile, fascism was a form of socialism and the answer to capitalism and democracy. In fact, Gentile said fascism was the most workable form of socialism.

History’s most famous fascists were the Nazis, also known as the National Socialists. So who are today’s Nazis?

The above article was sent by Christian Robert Earl Ray.

Available now, Dinesh D’Souza’s new book The Big Lie exposes the Left’s biggest lie yet: their campaign to paint conservatives as Nazis to cover up their own fascism.

https://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/is-fascism-right-or-left/

How Democrats, Especially their Feminists, Have Adored, Esteemed Woman- Killer Ted Kennedy

No One Ever Drowned in Roy Moore’s Car

by Jack Cashill    at American Thinker:

In 1990, when liberal journalists still had some sense of obligation to the truth, Michael Kelly wrote the following for GQ:

As [Carla] Gaviglio enters the room, the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound [Sen. Ted] Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on [Sen. Chris] Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair. With Gaviglio on Dodd’s lap, Kennedy jumps on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers, supporting his weight on the arms of the chair. As he is doing this, Loh enters the room. She and Gaviglio both scream, drawing one or two dishwashers. Startled, Kennedy leaps up. He laughs. Bruised, shaken and angry over what she considered a sexual assault, Gaviglio runs from the room.

The incident above took place in 1985 at the restaurant La Brasserie in Washington, D.C., where Loh and Gavigilio both worked as waitresses.  Everyone in Washington knew about it, including Sen. Claire McCaskill.  Here is what McCaskill had to say about Kennedy’s behavior upon his death in 2009:

This man was so much more than his image. While his vision soared, the power of his personality and the magnet of his intellect drew his colleagues to the table of compromise. It was there he did his best work. His love for the little guy and his affection for the underdog influenced everything he did. And importantly, his sense of humor and contagious laughter made him real and approachable in spite of his power and privilege.

Although more than enough to kill a Republican’s career, the infamous “waitress sandwich” barely made Kennedy’s highlight reel.  For sheer moral squalor, it was hard to top Chappaquiddick.  This 1969 incident is well enough known; in brief, Kennedy hosted a drunken party at an isolated beach house whose guests included exactly six married men and six single women.

Late that night, Kennedy and one of the women, Mary Jo Kopechne, left for their own private party at an equally isolated beach but never made it.  The car went off a small bridge.  Ted Kennedy left Mary Jo alive, trapped in the car and gasping for air.  He bypassed homes near the bridge, from which he could have called the police, and walked over a mile back to the party house.  Once there, he sought out his lawyer friends, Joe Gargan and Paul Markham, to help him work out his alibi.  Compromised by a presumed lawyer-client relationship, they had to wait for Kennedy to call for help.  Kennedy never did.  He may have been hoping that Gargan, the family fixer, would take the rap.  Mary Jo, meanwhile, struggled to survive for perhaps an hour, even more, before suffocating.

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington was eighteen when Kennedy let Mary Jo Kopechne die.  Said she in her tribute to Kennedy, “When I was young Ted Kennedy was larger than life.”  Murray continues with a straight face, “Ted never once stopped fighting for those who couldn’t fight for themselves.”  Ms. Kopechne might beg to differ.

Although Ted was never tried for rape, his nephew, William Kennedy Smith, was.  On Good Friday 1991, Kennedy took Smith and his son Patrick out for a long night of drinking.  What better way for a Catholic to honor Good Friday?  The young men brought two young women home with them.  Hoping perhaps for his share of the action, a drunken Ted Kennedy, nearly 60 now, wandered without pants into the room where everyone gathered.

“I got totally weirded out,” said one of the women.  She stood up and told the others, “I’m out of here. I’m leaving.”  The fleeing guest left behind Patricia Bowman, the woman who would accuse Smith of rape.  Smith would be acquitted.  Ted Kennedy cheered.  He believed Anita Hill two months earlier, but he chose not to believe Bowman.  “It’s the acquittal that money can buy,” said Bowman afterwards.  Reported rapes were said to have dropped 40 percent in that part of Florida after the trial.  No one wanted to go through with what Bowman had.

“Twenty years after I first met him, I was elected as a U.S. Senator from Maryland,” said Maryland’s Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Kennedy.  “I was just one of two women Senators and the first Democratic woman elected to the Senate in her own right. Though I was all by myself, I was never alone. Maryland’s senior Senator Paul Sarbanes and Senator Kennedy were what I call my ‘Sir Galahads.'”

After just thirty years in the Senate, Mikulski stepped down last year.  McCaskill and Murray, however, may get to decide the fate of Alabama’s Roy Moore should he get elected to the U.S Senate.  They do not believe that Moore lives up to their standards.  Without benefit of due process, McCaskill declared him “not fit” to serve in the same Senate as Sir Galahad Ted Kennedy.

Say what one will about Roy Moore, but unlike Kennedy, he did not make a career of debauchery, and no one ever drowned in his car.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/12/no_one_ever_drowned_in_roy_moores_car.html

GAY WEDDING CAKES NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT…..but it may be up North in fascistic Canada

Gay Wedding Cakes Not a Constitutional Right

by Daniel John Sobieski

“One wonders what would have happened if the case currently before the Supreme Court did not involve the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop refusing to be coerced to violate his religious conscience by providing a wedding cake for a gay wedding that celebrates gay marriage, but rather a Muslim bakery being forced to bake a cake decorated with a cartoon picture of the prophet Muhammed covered with bacon sprinkles.

Creative expression in any form is free speech which, along with freedom of religion, is supposedly protected in the First Amendment. People should not be compelled to write or say things they do not believe or agree with, whether it be in the form of ink on paper or frosting on wedding cakes.

In this case, as Jordan Lawrence writes in National Review, the line between providing a service and expressing a view are being deliberately blurred by liberals to destroy both free speech and religious liberty:

The government must not force creative businesses to create messages that they oppose. During the Masterpiece Cakeshop oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, the two attorneys opposing cake artist Jack Phillips argued that the justices should not protect Phillips’s freedom to abstain from creating expression he disagrees with. Their primary argument was that, in their opinion, it is too difficult to draw lines protecting people’s First Amendment right against compelled speech, so the high court should not protect Jack’s rights….

David Cole of the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the Supreme Court should conclude that anything Phillips would create under some circumstances, he must create in all contexts…

(But) a cake artist who agrees to design a rainbow cake for a Noah’s Ark–themed Sunday-school party should not be forced against his will to make the same cake for a same-sex wedding (like the one that the same-sex couple who visited Masterpiece Cakeshop eventually got for their wedding reception). Neither should a cake artist who would craft an elephant-shaped cake for a party at the zoo be forced to create the same cake for a Republican-party celebration. Nor should a cake artist who is willing to design a cake saying “I’m dreaming of a white Christmas” for a Christmas party be required to make that cake for a party hosted by Aryan Nations.

The Masterpiece Cakeshop case is different than saying a hotel or restaurant cannot refuse service to people based on their sexual orientation. Baking is a wedding cake is a creative process and you cannot force a baker to create something that violates his religious beliefs anymore than you can force a writer to put on paper opinions he or she vehemently disagrees with,

That gay marriage is a looming threat to religious liberty as observed here, and may lead to an era of religious persecution not seen in since the days of the Roman Empire, are seen in the chilling redefinition of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty by Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin, and the Senate’s only lesbian.

Baldwin made her remarks on the June 27, 2015 broadcast of “Up With Steve Kornacki” on MSNBC. In a transcript posted on Newsbusters, Baldwin ignored the fact that it was religious persecution in Europe that led to people fleeing here seeking religious freedom on an individual as well as institutional level:

Certainly the first amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don’t think it extends far beyond that. We’ve seen the set of arguments play out in issues such as access to contraception. Should it be the individual pharmacist whose religious beliefs guides whether a prescription is filled, or in this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.”

Baldwin, in arguing that there is no individual right to religious liberty and expression, misreads the Constitution with its mandate saying Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It is a key phrase in the First Amendment, leading off the Bill of Rights. These are individual rights fought for in the American Revolution. These rights are not limited to institutions but apply to all individuals, just as the Supreme Court has decided the Second Amendment applies to individuals and not just to state-ordained militias.

Baldwin had been asked the question, “Should the bakery have to bake the cake for the gay couple getting married? Where do you come down on that?” She came down on the side of government coercion and the proposition that church is something you do on Sunday for an hour and otherwise shouldn’t act on your religious beliefs in your daily life.

The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa tried to act on their faith but were ordered to pay $135,000 to a lesbian couple based on an order from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. As the Washington Times reported:

The order affirms an initial ruling in January that found Aaron and Melissa Klein had violated Oregon civil-rights law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony in 2013 and ordered them to pay damages to Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman.

In Iran, gay wedding cake and pizza requests are handled a bit more harshly and with more finality than a simple statement from a business owner that his or her faith won’t allow them to cater the affair. If two gays contemplating marriage had walked into a Tehran pizza shop like Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana, the pizza shop that refused to cater a gay wedding, hanging in the public square and not a simple refusal would have been a likely outcome.

Crystal O’Connor, member of the family that owns Memories Pizza, told local ABC news affiliate that she agreed with Indiana’s version of the federal RFRA signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. “If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” she told local station ABC57. Her beliefs and rights and the beliefs and rights of the owners of Sweet Cakes and Masterpiece Cakeshop should be respected

The Hobby Lobby case revolved around the belief of the owners that people should be free to act on their faith in their daily lives which includes their business life. It is a belief shared by many including the Founding Fathers. As Investor’s Business Daily observed:

So do scores of Catholic and non-Catholic institutions and businesses who argue either that the way they run their private businesses is an extension of their faith or that a church, something the federal government seeks to redefine, is not something that happens one hour a week on a Sunday but 24/7 through the hospitals, schools, soup kitchens, and charities they may operate. They argue that acting out their faith through their works should not be illegal.

To gay advocates, acting on your sincerely held religious beliefs is bigotry. They ask that their lifestyles be respected as well as their newly discovered right to marriage, found in the “penumbras and emanations” of the Constitution that also gave us the right to abortion. Neither abortion nor marriage is mentioned specifically in the Constitution, but religious liberty and those who saying acting on your faith is bigotry are physicians sorely in need of healing themselves.

Sen. Baldwin’s definition of religious liberty is not that much different than Lenin’s and Stalin’s. Investor’s Business Daily once quoted Cardinal Francis George regarding ObamaCare and its imposition of the contraceptive mandate on religious institutions:

“Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union,” Chicago’s Francis Cardinal George recently wrote.

“You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship — no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. We fought a long Cold War to defeat that vision of society.”

One wonders what would happen, or should happen in Sen. Baldwin’s view, if a gay couple walked into a bakery owned by African-Americans and asked for a Confederate flag on their wedding cake. The irony here is that those who profess to be the most tolerance exhibit the most intolerance. If you demand tolerance of your lifestyle, you should exhibit tolerance of other people’s religious beliefs. Otherwise it is you who are the hypocrite and the bigot.

Justice Anthony Kennedy may have tipped his hand in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, noting in comments during oral arguments:

All eyes were fixed on the perennial swing Supreme Court jurist as attorneys argued in Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and conservatives had to like Kennedy’s brushback to Colorado’s lawyers early in the hearing. According to the Wall Street Journal’s live blog, Kennedy wanted to know how the state tried to accommodate the baker’s rights to speech and religious expression, and he expressed his dissatisfaction with the response:

Justice Anthony Kennedy told a lawyer for the state that tolerance is essential in a free society, but it’s important for tolerance to work in both directions. “It seems to me the state has been neither tolerant or respectful” of the baker’s views, he said.

Well said. Indeed, the road to oppression and the end of liberty is paved with political correctness……”

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/12/gay_wedding_cakes_not_a_constitutional_right.html