Friday, June 30, 2017

Image result for Liberal hate free speech
Image result for Liberal hate free speech

S.J.W are destroying society… and anyone that disagrees with them

Image result for Liberal hate free speech

They don’t believe in freedom of speech.
This should be obvious to anyone who reads the news. When progressives are faced with speech they don’t like, they utilize every tool at their disposal to shut it down, up to and including violence — and usually while simultaneously playing the victim card. Conservative speakers on campus generally need a cadre of bodyguards for protection. Pro-life displays are frequently attacked and torn down. Some controversial speakers actually face riots, vandalism, and violence prior to having arrived and prior to having actually said anything—and even feminist icons like Germaine Greer are having their speaking engagements targeted for refusing to embrace the current transgender craze. One Pew Research Poll in 2015 even reported that 40 percent of millennials supported limited speech that offended minorities — and the categories of those who qualify as “minorities,” of course, are growing by the week.
They don’t believe in freedom of religion.
For years, gay rights activists insisted that they had no intention of forcing their views on anyone, and claimed that those Christians warning that the LGBT movement intended to attack religious freedom after the legalization of gay marriage were lying. As it turns out, the gay activists were lying brazenly — in one pro-gay documentary prior to Obergefell, 8: The Mormon Proposition, a number of LGBT campaigners bristled in righteous indignation, accusing their critics of deceitful fearmongering. A few years on, every single warning delivered by Christian activists interviewed for the documentary had already come to pass. With a few notable exceptions such as Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch, most gay activists and their progressive counterparts reject the idea of religious liberty entirely. President Obama and his liberal comrades took to using the phrase “freedom of worship” instead—“worship,” of course, being an activity that can be kept safely within the walls of a church and out of the public square.
They are willing to coerce you into saying words you do not want to say in order to enforce their ideological agenda.
From cosmopolitan centres like New York City to nations like Canada, trans activists are attempting to pass legislation that redefines human rights, freedom of speech, and the very definition of violence. Recent legislation in Canada, for example, can be used to prosecute people for refusing to refer to trans people by their “preferred pronouns,” an ever-expanding category that includes nonsensical words like “ze” and “zir.” This is no longer even restricting what people can and cannot say — no, trans activists want to take a totalitarian step forward and dictate what people must say. Their right to be called whatever they want — and they continue to make things up as we speak — is now, progressives insist, a “human right.” Not referring to a person by the specific pronoun of their choice, on the other hand, can actually be classified as “violence,” a word that will, in the hands of progressive activists, soon be rendered as meaningless as the world “justice.”
They are willing to take your children away — and certainly willing to threaten this.
Progressives believe it is a fun family day out to take your children to the Pride Parade, where they will be exposed to the genitalia of adults, half-naked drag queens, and simulated sex acts, but they also believe that they would be far better at raising your children than you are, because they are far more open-minded. Thus, legislation recently passed in Ontario indicates that if parents appeared insufficiently enthusiastic about the potential desire of their children to obtain a sex change courtesy of the trendy transgender delusion, those children could be removed from your care and placed in a haven run by adults who are more than willing to allow children not yet old enough to buy alcohol undergo genital surgery that will irreversibly alter their bodies. Progressives are not bluffing in their rhetoric — they’re all in, and your children just might end up being the stakes.
They only use science when it is convenient for them.
As I’ve written before, progressives claim to be obsessed with scientific data, but promptly abandon it when it no longer suits their agenda. Academics who point out that there is no scientific basis for the current transgender craze are thus shunned as hateful transphobes. Climate change models are thus impeccable evidence that we must restructure the global economy, but the ironclad scientific consensus indicating when life begins in the womb must be ignored. Even ultrasounds, embryoscopy footage, and medical textbooks are not enough to make progressives consider the ethics of abortion — although ironically, any effective abortionist could tell you all about the pre-born child in the womb. After all, he’s the one that has to crush the head and twist off the little arms and legs with forceps.  
They see Christianity as more of a threat than Islam.
Ever wonder why progressives won’t refer to “Islamic terror”? Easy. They see the world in Marxist terms, and in their world, Western Civilization as founded by white Christians is always the oppressor and those with a bone to pick with the West are always the oppressed, responding to some injustice. That is why you will see more rage from California officials about states protecting the religious freedom of Christian bakers than you will in response to a mass shooting committed by a Muslim. That’s why the progressive response to another round of ISIS butchery somewhere in Europe is always “live like this never happened (unless you’re one of the dead ones, of course) because that’s how we win!” On the other hand, someone who expresses suspicion over the veracity of the claims made by transgender activists will immediately become the target of a left-wing holy war. Progressives have no time to get angry at Islamic terrorists who toss gay people off buildings. They’re far too busy being furious at a pizza parlor that declined to serve a gay wedding.
They are completely willing to destroy your life if you disagree with them.
Perhaps one of the key differences between progressivism and Christianity is that Christians believe in forgiveness, while progressives will happily destroy your entire life for the slightest of secular heresies. Anyone who says something that is now considered homophobic will have to either deliver maudlin apologies on the confessional talk show circuit or be shunned. Academics who cannot keep track of this week’s white privilege cisgender trans activist purity code and bump into the tolerance buzz saw are likely to be gutted like a fish — student mobs now enjoy using their reputation for physical violence to demand that professors they dislike be fired, immediately. Christian businesspeople who have struggled most of their adult lives to create a little bakery or other establishment can be a victim of the rainbow blitzkrieg in the blink of an eye. Real people are being destroyed by the #lovewins crowd, and they don’t care.
Progressivism is poisonous. They want the State to co-parent your children, and believe they know better than you do. They use science as a cudgel to further their ideology, and abandon it when it is no longer useful. They believe in the violent destruction of little human beings in the womb, but claim that not using made-up words like “ze” or “zir” is “violence.” In short: If you’re a Christian who still clings stubbornly to the orthodoxies that have defined Christianity for 2,000 years, they hate you — and they don’t have any problem saying that. There are many other reasons progressivism is dangerous, of course. But those few, I think, highlight why we must fight them tooth and nail for what remains of our countries and our cultures.
Image result for gay liberal
Image result for gay liberal
Image result for gay liberal
Image result for gay liberal
Related image

Thursday, June 29, 2017

Police: Murder Of Black Confused Gender Teen Result Of Feuding Black Confused Gender Groups So More Black On Black Killing

Image result for black lives matter

 teen was tragically murdered at an apartment complex in Athens, Georgia, over the weekend. On Wednesday, Athens-Clarke County police officials confirmed the murder was the result of a feud between two transgender groups. 
According to Online Athens, 17-year-old victim Rayquann Deonte Jernigan, who went by Ava Le’Ray Barrin, though he never legally changed his name, was murdered by Jalen Breon Brown, 21, in the parking lot of an apartment complex. Jernigan died from a single gunshot wound. 

See the moment that caused triggered SJ.W Special Snowflake to attack Trump for Oval Office ‘sexual harassment’

Image result for sjw special snowflake

During a Tuesday press opportunity in the Oval Office, President Trump told a reporter that she had a “nice” smile. As a result, liberals are calling Trump out for what they call a “classic case of sexual harassment” and are asking that the president be punished.

While on the phone with Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, Trump told the PM that some Irish journalists were in audience and, while on the phone with the PM, called one of them over.
“We have all of this beautiful Irish press,” Trump told Varadkar. Referring a reporter in attendance by the name of Catriona Perry, Trump said, “She has a nice smile on her face so I bet she treats you well.”

Liberal women’s advocacy organization, UltraViolet, took issue with the president’s sentiments and claimed that the “incident” was simply sexual harassment.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

LGBT Movement’s “New Morality”: Making Gay Okay?

Image result for liberal logic 101 gender roles

Author Robert Reilly’s latest book, “Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior is Changing Everything,” dissects the homosexual movement’s strategy of indoctrinating Americans on the pros (but not cons) of LGBT behavior. robert reilly book

The new norm of sexual behavior is “if you rationalize my sexual misbehavior, I’ll rationalize yours” as well. This goes against the natural law of man, which were recognized by ancient Greeks. Even the Greeks believed that a mentor-mentee relationship should be platonic between a wiser, older man and a younger man seeking wisdom, which iscontrary to the modernmedia’s perception of Greek culture. Those who disobeyed the natural law were punished.

Marriage, contends Reilly, fulfills natural law. Without marriage of opposite sex couples, there is little-to-no future of the state or society. Homosexual, or same-sex, marriages are naturally sterile and would have to rely on adoption or other individuals for children and offspring. In his words, “same-sex relationships exchange this potency [i.e. having children] for impotency.” By not recognizing the value of traditional marriage and gender roles, it becomes “a denial of humanity, of what [it] is.” Rationalizing homosexual behavior as normal is, says Reilly, “robbing the word Nature of its meaning.”

The dissolution of the family and the sterility of same-sex families will create a more government-dependent American society, warns Reilly. The campaign team for President Obama used a graphic known as “The Life of Julia,” where a woman depends on the government for her livelihood and where “family is practically nowhere present.” This paints “government dependence and family absence as a success, rather than as a warning.” As MSNBC anchor Melissa Harris-Perry said, in supporting this government-dependent view, “We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to their communities.”

Also, Reilly brings up the term “sodomy,” which is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex.” He contends that with rampant sexual misbehavior, rationalizations take place:

“Thus rationalizations become an engine for revolutionary change that will affect society as a whole…If you are going to center your public life on the private act of sodomy, you had better transform sodomy into a highly moral act. If sodomy is a moral disorder, it cannot be legitimately advanced on the legal or civil level.”

Reilly goes on to say that this leads to other implications, by abandoning one standard that affects others:

“As a moral act, sodomy should be normative. If it is normative, it should be taught in our schools as a standard. If it is a standard, it should be enforced. In fact…sodomy should be sacramentalized.”
The issue surrounding HIV and AIDS has ignored the problems of homosexual behavior. Instead of focusing on how homosexuality increases the risks of contracting HIV and/or AIDS, the gay community has portrayed themselves as victims. For example, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for HIV/AIDS found “94.9% of HIV diagnoses [were] among teenage boys” and 94.1% of young men between 20 to 24 years old were a result of homosexual sex. “By this rationalization, homosexuals are victims, not perpetrators,” said Reilly, and “likewise, homosexuals are not responsible for the contraction or the spread of AIDS; they are its victims.” This has led to an incredible amount of research money geared towards AIDS research. Reilly asks whether those who smoke and contract lung cancer should blame researchers for not doing more to raise funds for lung cancer research, which is what the gay community and gay lobby do.

Adding to that, homosexual fidelity is far below that of heterosexual couples who are married. Homosexual marriage advocates contend that their relationships are stable, when studies have shown quite the opposite. “Of 156 couples studied, only seven had maintained sexual fidelity; of the hundred couples that had been together for more than five years, none had been able to maintain sexual fidelity.” Compared to married heterosexual couples, “94% of married people…had only one partner in the prior year” and “were 41 times more likely to be monogamous than homosexual couples.” A University of Chicago study in 2004 found that 42.9% of gay men in the city’s Shoreland area had more than 60 sexual partners and 55% of Chicago gay men in that area have “at least one sexually transmitted disease.” Research suggests that homosexual activity hurts an individuals’ health in the long term, reducing life expectancy, increasing the chance of sexually-transmitted diseases as well as an increase in the likelihood of contracting AIDS or HIV.

Obama and his vice president Joe Biden “openly espouse” same-sex marriage “because they first embraced the larger view of reality of which the rationalization is only a part.” They have evolved on the position, says Reilly, but he sees it as “devolving.” He asks, “What is the object of marriage?” He says it is “for two to become “one flesh”.” The same-sex argument of “love” goes against “real love,” argues Reilly, because “real love always seeks the well-being of the loved one…to sexualize the love in these relationships would be profoundly mistaken because none of these loving relationships is or could be spousal in character.” Not all love is sexual, posits Reilly, and should not have to be sexual in nature. In his ideological battle, Reilly points out that Obama “is changing the rules so that those who are not following them can have their own special set of rules.” By espousing equality before and under law, Obama “subverts equality before the law.”

Reilly quotes Obama, pointing out how Obama commonly uses “I”, “me” and “I’ve” to denote a unilateral, executive tone that infers what he deems important should be “the standard by which to judge what is right and wrong.” Obama’s “Church of Nada” encourages the belief that, “if you would like your moral misbehavior to be rationalized, you should be willing to rationalize the moral misbehavior of other. That is only fair play…this is Obama’s new golden rule.”

The implications of homosexual marriage’s advances are not encouraging, because polygamists are eager to promote how their love requires equal protection under law. To illustrate that point, among other important reasons, Reilly methodically walks through court cases that have led to the current situation of traditional marriage losing ground to same-sex marriage, from the Casey decision to the most recent Windsor decision. If the gays are now a protected class, asks Reilly, then what would prevent alcoholics, polygamists and other people from declaring the same claims in a courtroom?
Academia and college institutions in general have jumped on the homosexual agenda bandwagon and have created centers of study and courses on LGBT issues. The University of Maryland has a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies program and has eighteen undergraduate courses (nine of which are electives) and two graduate-level courses. Reilly lists other universities that have majors, minors, certificates and concentrations in LGBT studies such as Wesleyan, Ohio State, Stanford,North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Brandeis, Washington State, Duke, Miami University of Ohio and DePaul. 43% of Catholic universities and colleges in the U.S. “recognized student clubs that favor the homosexual agenda,” Reilly finds.

Walker Battles Climate Change Believers to Reshape Department of Natural, Resources? President Trump’s rejection of fact, science and of the Paris Climate Agreement is an act that endangers every American, No Rejection of Fact"s And Science Bye Liberal , When It Come To Gender Identity IS The Real Act That Endangers every American!

Image result for liberal logic 101 gender roles

Wisconsin Democrats have demanded Gov. Scott Walker (R) join the U.S. Climate Alliance, a newly formed coalition of states that intends to move forward with the terms of the Paris climate accord after President Trump’s decision to pull out of the agreement.
"President Trump’s rejection of fact, science and of the Paris Climate Agreement is an act that endangers every American. Gov. Walker’s silence on this issue echoes this shared anti-environment, anti-middle class agenda,” read the letter to Walker signed by 35 state representatives and 11 senators.

"Given the recent reports on Wisconsin’s dismal slump in job creation, we cannot afford to reject both the economic opportunity that green jobs would bring to Wisconsin and the moral obligation of taking a stand to address climate change,” the Democrats concluded.
Will Walker bend and join the Climate Alliance? Not likely, since the Republican has proposed transferring 15 scientists, who had been studying climate change and global warming, to new jobs within the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Two years ago, 18 DNR science bureau researchers lost their jobs as the result of a Walker administration budget cut.

Democrats said it’s no coincidence that all of those DNR employees were working on climate change research and the impact climate change could have on Wisconsin.
“This is just part of the continued effort to discourage the use of science or evidence in this administration’s decision-making,” Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D) told the Wisconsin State Journal. “Gov. Walker and Legislative Republicans don’t want science to get in the way of their politics.”
Sen. Tom Tiffany (R), who said the idea that climate change caused by human activity was “theoretical,” told the Wisconsin State Journal it is true the Walker administration is trying to alter the structure of the DNR.

“I think it’s a more disciplined approach where the leadership of the Department of Natural Resources really directs that research,” said Sen. Tiffany, who does not believe that the climate is changing as rapidly as many scientists claim.
This is not a new political fight in Wisconsin. The DNR’s website was scrubbed of its climate change section late last year. Instead of saying the Earth’s climate was changing and humans were the cause, the Wisconsin DNR site now notes the Earth is going through a change with the causes of said change still being debated.

“As it has done throughout the centuries, the earth is going through a change. The reasons for this change at this particular time in the earth's long history are being debated and researched by academic entities outside the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,” the DNR website read.

“The effects of such a change are also being debated but whatever the causes and effects, the DNR's responsibility is to manage our state's natural resources through whatever event presents itself; flood, drought, tornadoes, ice/snow or severe heat. The DNR staff stands ready to adapt our management strategies in an effort to protect our lakes, waterways, plants, wildlife and people who depend on them,” the Wisconsin DNR website concluded.

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

10 Things Your Body Shape Says About You, Gender Identity, Debunked!

7 Sexy Things Women Do That Turn Guys On.Gender Identity, Debunked!

10 Things Men secretly Love about Women, Gender Identity, Debunked!

50 REAL Differences Between Men & Women, Gender Identity, Debunked!

10 Things Guys Will NEVER Say To Girls, Gender Identity, Debunked!

10 Ways Men And Women Think Differently, Gender Identity, Debunked!

How Men and Women Think - FULL DEBATE, Gender Identity, Debunked!

Why Men and Women Think Differently? This Guy Nailed It, Gender Identity, Debunked!

5 Things All Men Want Women To Do More!, Gender Identity, Debunked!

5 Things Women Can Do That Men Can’t!, Gender Identity, Debunked!


Image result for The Dead will vote

Virginia student heading to prison after registering dead voters for Democrats

Image result for The Dead will vote
A student from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia, will spend at least 100 days in prison after admitting to registering deceased voters for Democrats during the 2016 presidential election.
Andrew J. Spieles, 21, pleaded guilty Monday in the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Virginia to submitting the names of dead voters to the registrar’s office in Harrisonburg, WTVR-TV reported.

The student was working for Harrisonburg Votes when he committed the crime, according to U.S. Attorney Rick A. Mountcastle. Harrisonburg Votes, whose website has since been deleted, has ties to the Democratic Party.
The political organization was founded by former Harrisonburg Mayor Joe Fitzgerald, a Democratic activist who was in office from 2002 to 2004, according to The Washington Post. Fitzgerald fired Spieles and disavowed his actions once the allegations were made public in August.
“In July 2016, Spieles’ job was to register as many voters as possible and report to Democratic campaign headquarters in Harrisonburg,” a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office told WTVR. “In August 2016, Spieles was directed to combine his registration numbers with those of another individual because their respective territories overlapped.
“After filling out a registration form for a voter,” the spokesperson continued, “Spieles entered the information into a computer system used by the Virginia Democratic Party to track information such as name, age, address, and political affiliation. Every Thursday an employee [or] volunteer hand-delivered the paper copies of the registration forms to the registrar’s office in Harrisonburg.”
But Spieles was caught when one vigilant employee at the registrar’s office recognized one of the names he submitted — it belonged to the deceased father of a Rockingham County judge. The staffer called the police.
That discovery led the registrar’s office to unearth “multiple instances of similarly falsified forms when it reviewed additional registrations,” the U.S. attorney’s office spokesperson explained.
“Some were in the names of deceased individuals while others bore incorrect middle names, birth dates, and social security numbers,” the spokesperson continued. “The registrar’s office learned that the individuals named in these forms had not, in fact, submitted the new voter registrations.”
According to the news report, Spieles later admitted to committing the crime. He explained that he obtained the names, ages, and addresses of individuals from “walk sheets” given to him by the Virginia Democratic Party. From there, he would fabricate birth dates and social security numbers for the falsified voters before registering them.
In total, the JMU student said he created 18 fraudulent voter forms himself and said no one else participated in the crime.
This development is particularly noteworthy given President Donald Trump has often claimed widespread voter fraud is a major problem in the U.S. electoral system.
In May, the president signed an executive order establishing a commission to examine potential voter fraud and voter suppression.
“The commission will review policies and practices that enhance or undermine the American people’s confidence in the integrity of federal elections,” a White House spokesperson said at the time, “including improper registrations, improper voting, fraudulent registrations, fraudulent voting and voting suppression.”
By creating the commission, Trump is making good on a promise he made on Twitter just days after he became president. He vowed to begin “a major investigation” into voter fraud, including the number of deceased people registered to vote.

Monday, June 26, 2017

Liberals Calling Something ‘Discrimination’ Does Not Make It So, Again, I say Many Time's , The Word " No" Is Not Discrimination’ We Got A Legal Right To Say " No!"

The biggest problem with current sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) laws—including “Fairness for All,” which proposes a grand-bargain compromise between SOGI laws and religious liberty—is that they do not appropriately define what counts as discriminatory.

As I explain in a new report for The Heritage Foundation, “How to Think About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Policies and Religious Freedom,” these are the laws that are being used to shutter Catholic adoption agencies, fine evangelical bakers, and force business and public facilities to allow men into women’s locker rooms.

The problem is that liberals are calling anything they dislike “discrimination.” But liberals are getting it wrong. To illustrate this, consider several different cases of putative “discrimination.” The law must be nuanced enough to capture the important differences in these cases.

Invidious and Rightly Unlawful Discrimination 
Racially segregated water fountains were one form of discrimination that took race into consideration—in a context where it was completely irrelevant—and then treated blacks as second-class citizens precisely because they were black. The entire point was to classify on the basis of race in order to treat blacks as socially inferior.

As a result, such actions were rightly described as invidious race-based discrimination, and—given the entrenched, widespread, state-facilitated nature of the problem—they were rightly made unlawful.
Likewise, throughout much of American history, girls and women were not afforded educational opportunities equal to those available to boys and men. This form of discrimination took sex into consideration and then treated girls and women poorly precisely because of their sex, barring them from education in certain subjects or at certain levels despite being otherwise qualified.
As with invidious racial discrimination, such treatment took a feature (in this case, sex) into consideration precisely to treat women as less than men. The law rightly deemed such actions invidious sex-based discrimination, and—again, given the entrenched, widespread, and state-facilitated nature of the problem—Title IX of the Education Amendments was enacted to ensure that girls and women received equal educational opportunities.

Appropriate and Rightly Lawful Distinctions That Are Not Classified as Discrimination
When Title IX was enacted in 1972 and its implementing regulations were promulgated in 1975, the law made clear that sex-specific housing, bathrooms, and locker rooms were not unlawful discrimination. Such policies take sex into consideration, but they do not treat women as inferior to men or men as inferior to women. They treat both sexes equally because they take sex into consideration (they “discriminate”—in the nonpejorative sense of “distinguish”—on the basis of sex) precisely in a way that matters: by appreciating the bodily sexual difference of men and women in things such as housing, bathroom, and locker room policy.

Would we really be treating men and women equally in anything but an artificial way if we forced men and women, boys and girls, to undress in front of each other?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her majority opinion for the Supreme Court forcing the Virginia Military Institute to become co-ed, wrote that it “would undoubtedly require alterations necessary to afford members of each sex privacy from the other sex in living arrangements.” Yet we certainly would be treating people unequally if access to intimate facilities were based on factors wholly unrelated to privacy, such as race.
As a result, policymakers did not consider sex-specific intimate facilities as discriminatory in the first place, and laws explicitly reflected that commonsense understanding while rightly declaring racially segregated facilities to be unlawful.

The lesson here is that not all distinctions in fact should be deemed unlawful discrimination.
Not Discriminatory at All 

If sex-specific intimate facilities are an example of lawful, legitimate policies that take sex into consideration, pro-life medical practices are examples of policies that are legitimate and lawful because they do not take sex into consideration at all.

That only women can get pregnant has no bearing whatsoever on the judgment of the conscientious doctor or nurse who refuses to kill the unborn. The insistence of LGBT activists that men actually can become pregnant highlights the point: Pro-life medical personnel refuse to do abortions on pregnant women and “pregnant men” (i.e. women who identify as men).
Thus, we can identify three different types of cases:
  • Cases of invidious discrimination, in which an irrelevant factor is taken into consideration in order to treat people poorly based on that factor, as with racially segregated water fountains;
  • Cases of distinctions without unlawful discrimination, in which a factor is taken into consideration precisely because it is relevant to the underlying policy and people are not treated poorly, as with sex-specific intimate facilities; and
  • Cases with neither distinctions nor discrimination, in which a particular factor simply does not enter into consideration, as with pro-life doctors.
Any proposed policy intended to address the documented needs of people who identify as LGBT must take these categories into account without conflation.

SOGI Discrimination: Real and Imagined
Consider a florist who refused to serve all customers who identify as LGBT simply because they identified as LGBT. That would be a case of invidious discrimination because the mere knowledge that they identify as LGBT should have no impact whatsoever on the act of the florist selling flowers, because there is no rational connection between the two.
Now consider Baronelle Stutzman, the 71-year-old grandmother who served one particular gay costumer for nearly a decade but declined to do the wedding flowers for his same-sex wedding ceremony.
The customer’s sexual orientation did not play any role in Stutzman’s decision. Her belief that marriage is a union of sexually complementary spouses does not spring from any convictions about people who identify as LGBT. When she says she can do wedding flowers only for true weddings, she makes no distinctions based on sexual orientation at all.

This is seen most clearly in the case of Catholic Charities adoption agencies. They decline to place the children entrusted to their care with same-sex couples not because of their sexual orientation, but because of the conviction that children deserve both a mother and a father.

That belief—that men and women are not interchangeable, mothers and fathers are not replaceable, the two best dads in the world cannot make up for a missing mom, and the two best moms in the world cannot make up for a missing dad—has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Catholic Charities does not say that people who identify as LGBT cannot love or care for children; it does not take sexual orientation into consideration at all. Its preference for placing children with mothers and fathers is not an instance of discrimination based on sexual orientation—and the law should not say otherwise.

Purported gender identity discrimination presents similar problems. The Washington Post recently reported on a woman who was suing a Catholic hospital for declining to perform a sex reassignment procedure on her that entailed removing her healthy uterus. In that report, the Post captures the conflation of real and imaginary discrimination.

“What the rule says is if you provide a particular service to anybody, you can’t refuse to provide it to anyone,” said Sarah Warbelow, the legal director for the Human Rights Campaign. That means a transgender person who shows up at an emergency room with something as basic as a twisted ankle cannot be denied care, as sometimes happens, Warbelow said. That also means if a doctor provides breast reconstruction surgery or hormone therapy, those services cannot be denied to transgender patients seeking them for gender dysphoria, she said.

The two examples given, however, differ in significant ways. A hospital that refuses to treat the twisted ankles of people who identify as transgender simply because they identify as transgender would be engaging in invidious discrimination, but a hospital that declines to remove the perfectly healthy uterus of a woman who identifies as a man is not engaging in “gender identity” discrimination.

The gender identity of the patient plays no role in the decision-making process: Just as pro-life physicians do not kill unborn babies, regardless of the sex or gender identity of the pregnant person, doctors do not remove healthy uteruses from any patients, regardless of how they identify themselves.

As for the Human Rights Campaign spokesperson’s claim that emergency rooms “sometimes” refuse to treat the twisted ankles of transgender patients, there is no evidence—including on their own website—that it or anything similar in fact happens. Furthermore, insofar as this “sometimes happens,” it seems reasonable to think that the media would focus so much attention on it that the hospital would reverse course within hours. It therefore seems highly unlikely that this alleged problem merits a governmental response.

Need for Policy Shapes the Nature of Policy Response, Definitions, and Protections
My new Heritage report argues that any justified government policy must not penalize valid forms of action and interaction or burden the rights of conscience, religion, and speech. We can see this principle in action.
Because there was such widespread, entrenched systemic and institutional racism throughout American society in the 1960s, for example, and because social and market forces were not sufficient to remedy the problem, it was appropriate for government to respond. That response was properly tailored to meet this need. It defined discrimination to include racially segregated accommodations, places of employment, and housing providers while providing thin religious liberty protections.
Because the justification for antidiscrimination laws based on race was so strong and the need was so great, the law was appropriately broad with limited exemptions.
By contrast, consider laws that address discrimination based on sex. Because the nature of sex and the history of sexism did not represent an exact parallel to racism, the law did not treat them in entirely the same ways. Discrimination was legally defined so as not to include sex-specific intimate facilities, and much broader—and in some cases total—religious liberty exemptions were included. And to this day, sex is not a protected class for federal antidiscrimination law as applied to public accommodations.
In sum, because the justification for laws against sex-based discrimination was weaker than the justification for laws against race-based discrimination, the legal response was more modest: It covered less terrain, defined discrimination more narrowly, and provided greater protection for religious liberty.
Any proposed policies intended to meet the needs of people who identify as LGBT would need to be crafted in a similar manner. Without greater evidence of the justification for specific policy responses—greater documentation of what the needs truly are—it is hard to be specific. In general, however, the need clearly seems weaker than the need for policies designed to deal with discrimination on the basis of race and sex.
A policy response would therefore need to cover less ground, target discrimination more narrowly, define discrimination accurately, and avoid undermining the rights of conscience, religion, and speech. Alas, laws proposed by liberals today do not do this.

Bernie: Obamacare Isn't Working Well, and the GOP Plan Would Kill People, So We Need Socialized Healthcare

 Image result for bernie Sanders is an idiot

Let there be no doubt: The Democratic base's center of political gravity is drifting inexorably to the left, so support for a national single payer healthcare scheme will at some point -- probably sooner than later -- become an ideological litmus test within that party.  Recall California leftists booing and heckling Democratic officials who were unwilling to blindly endorse a proposed Socialized healthcare bill, the price tag for which would double the state's already-bloated budget.  Without any plan to pay for it, and cheered on by the Golden State's leading candidate for governor, Senate Democrats in Sacramento passed the bill -- only to see it sputter and die in the House.  The ruinous fiscal fantasy is stymied for now, but it'll be back.  When it inevitably returns, perhaps California lawmakers should consult with their left-wing counterparts in Vermont, a very liberal state with a small and relatively homogenous population. Vermonters actually approved a single-payer healthcare system seven years ago, and then reality intruded in 2014:
For decades, liberal activists yearned for a European-style, single-payer health system that they argued would lead to more affordable, efficient, and comprehensive medical coverage for all citizens. When Vermont four years ago enacted a landmark bill to establish the nation’s first single-payer health care system, they saw their long-sought dream about to be fulfilled. But reality hit last month. Governor Peter Shumlin released a financial report that showed the cost of the program would nearly double the size of the state’s budget in the first year alone and require large tax increases for residents and businesses. Shumlin, a Democrat and long-time single-payer advocate, said he would not seek funding for the law, effectively tabling the program called Green Mountain Care...The decision not only stunned and angered supporters in Vermont, but also signaled that the dream of universal, government-funded health care in the United States may be near its end...“The idea of single-payer, or a Medicare-for-all type program, has always been a cherished dream for many in the Democratic Party,” said Henry J. Aaron, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a liberal-leaning Washington think tank. “In truth, there had never been a hard, developed plan to implement such a dream. In Vermont, they finally developed a plan, and look what happened.”
Undeterred by this reality check from his own home state, Sen. Bernie Sanders once again pressed for a nationwide government-run healthcare system on Meet the Press yesterday:
"Well let me also say something else when we talk about where we are with health care. Please do not forget that the United States of America today remains the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care to all people as a right. My view is that the Affordable Care Act has problems. Deductibles are too high. Co-payments are too high. We have to address that.  But I also want to say that there is something wrong when we remain the only country not to guarantee health care to all people as a right. I am going to go forward with a Medicare-for-all, single-payer program.  And I think that's the direction long-term that we should be going."
You forgot to mention premiums, too, Senator.  In any case, it's telling that Sanders (while predictably ripping into the Republican healthcare bill), explicitly admits that the "Affordable" Care Act is failing on affordability -- which, we should never forget, was the central premise on which Obamacare was fraudulently marketed to the public.  With Democrats' healthcare experiment falling apart, Sanders is back to touting the need for a fully government-run and -controlled system, noting that the United States is the only major industrialized nation that hasn't embraced that model (declining to mention that some of those countries are moving away from it, amid systemic cost and access problems).  Leftists argue that the demise of exorbitantly-costly single payer dreams, even in states run by committed statists, wouldn't be replicated at the national level.  They cite the federal government's ability to collectively negotiate costs, and to impose and enforce blanket price controls.  Setting aside the fact that these top-down controls would crush medical innovation and inevitably result in government rationing, the notion that single payer is an affordable alternative is preposterous.
A liberal think tank analyzed Sanders' government-run healthcare plan during the campaign and determined that it would cost taxpayers an additional $32 trillion over ten years, meaning that Congress would need to extract more than three trillion dollars every year from the American people to pay for it.  In 2016, Washington spent roughly $3.9 trillion.  Total.  The federal government is already spending hundreds of billions of dollars more than it takes in on an annual basis, pouring more red ink onto the $20 trillion national debt.  The federal government has also handed out unpaid-for promises to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars, stretching into the future.  Absent serious reforms, we are headed to a debt crisis when programs like Medicare and Social Security become insolvent in the coming years.  What Sanders and his fellow travelers want is to take the current level of spending and explode it into the stratosphere, which would mathematically require stunning, economy-crushing and family budget-ruining tax increases on working and middle class Americans.  All to pay for a brand new, enormous program that would effectively massively expand Medicare, which is going broke as it is.

If you like the fiscal insolvency of Medicare, and the level of service provided by the VA -- where another 100 veterans have died awaiting care in Los Angeles -- you'll love single-payer healthcare.  Sanders' party is in denial over the latter reality, and Sanders shocked veterans groups by downplaying gross abuses, corruption and failures at the VA, which grew worse on his watch as chairman on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  He was blinded by his faith in big government.  Hillary Clinton similarly waved away the severity of the VA scandal, attacking Republicans for blowing it out of proportion.  As a reminder, according to the Inspector General, hundreds of thousands of American veterans may have died awaiting appointments and care through the broken federal system, which Republicans have moved to fix.

This is one of the reasons why it's so curious that Sanders and Clinton would lead the charge against the Senate healthcare bill by claiming that it would result in the deaths of thousands (citing a partisan, left-wing advocacy group's analysis).  They both reflexively defended a government program that directly resulted in veterans' premature deaths, wherein bureaucrats manipulated wait list data in order to protect their own taxpayer-funded bonuses.  Similarly, single-payer advocates don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to "people will die" arguments.  Beyond its unaffordability, government-run healthcare results in worse outcomes for its subjects: Far worse delays for doctor appointments and care, significantly worse survival rates for major diseases like cancer, far worse innovation for new life-saving treatments, and lower life expectancy rates (adjusting for fatal gunshot wounds and instant-death car accidents, which do not reflect on the efficacy of a healthcare system).
The plan Democrats created is betraying millions with shattered promises, and is failing apart at the seams.  They're shamelessly demagoguing GOP efforts to fix the mess they made, with the growing Sanders/Warren wing of the party advocating a national system that would result in worse treatment, fewer cures, longer waits for care, and lower survival rates for terrible diseases.  More people would die, sooner.  And Americans would be forced to pay much, much higher taxes for the privilege of living under such a regime.  In other words, to borrow their grotesque demagoguery, Democrats would be insistent on becoming the "death party."  I'll leave you with these correct statements, which expose an uncomfortable truth about Obamacare and cut through the Left's motives-impugning hysteria about the best solutions to these complex policy challenges:

Calf S.J.W On Video Harassing Gay Republican , So Your Telling Me, That Democratic Party Support Gay Right's , But Will Not Defend Gay Republican , Gay Right's? Why?

 Image result for they lost their minds

So Your Telling Me, That Democratic Party Support Gay Right's , but will not defend  Gay Republican , Gay Right's?  Why?

The incident took place in front of WalMart in Fullerton in the heart of the 29th Senate District, which Newman represents. LeTourneau, a long-time left-wing Democratic acivists notorious for his volcanic public outbursts, accused recall organizer Carl DeMaio, a gay Republican activist and former San Diego councilmean, of being a traitor to gays.

“Which one of you a**holes is the gay?,” LeTorneau says in the video. “You f—ing belong to a party that writes our destruction into its platform. How f—ing dare you be in this county. Get your s–t and get out of here. You are a f—ing disgrace to any gay person I know. Piece of sh-t.”
LeTourneau pressed up against the signature table, just a couple of feet from DeMaio, ranting and jabbing his finger while trying to prevent the man and his fellow volunteers from gathering signatures.

LeTourneau took photos of DeMaio and threaten to socially ostracize him:

“I’m gonna make sure everybody in the LGBTQ community knows.”

To which DeMaio replied, “They already know. I publish the San Diego Gay and Lesbian News. They know who I am.”

LeTourneau continued berating the man, barking that he was not authentically gay:

“You do not belong to our community. You also do not belong to the LGBTQ community either.”
A Democratic activist standing nearby came to LeTourneau’s defense, saying he didn’t blame LeTourneau for being angry.

“LeTourneau clearly thinks that if you are gay, you can only be a Democrat which is both arrogant and highly offensive,” DeMaio told the media. “The idea that Californians are sick of paying higher taxes cuts across party lines and sexual orientation.”

OC Daily reached out to OC Democratic Party Chair Fran Sdao for comment on whether this is appropriate behavior from a DPOC officer.

LeTourneau has a knack for courting controversy. Earlier this year, he came under fire to admitting, while addressing the Anaheim City Council, that he had illegally shipped medical marijuana across state lines. He cut his political teeth in ACT-UP’s confrontational, in-your-face school of political action.

The tragic shooting attack on the Republican congressional baseball team by ardent progressive activist James Hodgkinson, in which he severely wounded Rep. Steve Scalise and several other staffers and Capitol police officers, has sparked a national conversation about the toxic political environment created by extreme political rhetoric and actions. This is driven almost exclusively by  progressive-Left activists unable to cope with Donald Trump’s election and responding with over-the-top, over-heated rhetoric about fascism killing our Republic.

Given the apparent desire by political leaders on both sides of the aisle to lower the partisan temperature and pull our politics back from the brink, one has to wonder if it is time for the DPOC to retire LeTourneau’s extreme, attack-dog brand of activism.