This is ruling is not a statement about homosexualality or gay marriage. There is no reason that married, gay people should not support this decision because it is soley about the right of a person to act within the bounds of his/her personal, religious beliefs and in a way that does not harm other people or their property. Read the story in the Washington Examiner: Supreme Court tosses out ruling against florist who declined to make arrangement for gay wedding
Here's what we think about the White House's announcement of a policy to ban most transgender people from serving in military...
The consensus of our membership is that we generally oppose legislation to control adult, consensual activities involving private property (including one's own body). We also apply rational thought and commonsense to life's challenges.
If you have a male body but think it should be female, that is none of our business. On the other hand, you make it our business by demanding that we pay for your sex-change surgery and/or the medical care and hormone therapy that will follow it for the rest of your life. There is no "right" to serve in the military. Applicants have been denied entry to military service for as long as there have been militaries. Medical, legal, marital status, etc., are or have been discriminators.
We don't know what causes a person to believe s/he was "born with the wrong body," but the cause is irrelevant to whether s/he should be allowed to enter the US military, or to take steps to change that body once admitted.
THE purpose of the military is to "kill people and break things." All other functions are all other functions are incidental. So, whether you are blind, were born without arms, have asthma, are diagnosed with bi-polar disorder, use heroin, have a congenital heart defect, think you're supposed to have a penis and just were't born with one, etc., you should not be admitted to the US military. It's not personal. It's not a matter of morals or ethics. It's functional.
Note: We are keenly aware that underlying the publicly stated reasons for the demand that transsexuals be allowed military service is the never-ending campaign to "fundamentally transform" America and tear down it's institutions and traditions in the name of "social justice." Changes may be beneficial or even necessary, but must not be pursued with a myopic disregard for facts, rational thought and consequences.
The NCGA just created a new welfare program and Bob Luebke is promoting it on the Civitas Website. The program uses the NC tax system to take money from North Carolinians with their own financial struggles and family heartache, and gives it to the selected group of families with "special needs."
From the program's online brochure:
The parent or legal guardian is provided a bank account to hold scholarship funds for an eligible student to be used for qualifying education expenses. Recipients will receive quarterly deposits for a total not to exceed $9,000 per year.
Civitas' public mission statement: "The Civitas Institute fights to remove barriers to freedom so that all North Carolinians can enjoy a better life," so it seems Civitas has adopted the Progressive definition of "freedom."
The dissolution of the United States of America is a frightening thing to contemplate.
The only alternatives are a dissolution into multiple countries with different levels of freedom, or Totalitarian one party California-on-a-national-level tyranny.
Is this what we're destined for? Are other alternatives not realistic? Read this short blog and tell us what you think.
The American Revolution was the triumph of Individualism over Collectivism; freedom over the tyranny of rule by a few Masterminds who purport to know best how you should live your life. The freedom established by the American Revolution and grown over time was based in a philosophy diametrically opposite to that of the neo-communism being advance by the Left, today. Radicals like Bernie Sanders are out of the closet. Idealistic, emotional, ignorant college faculty and students are part of the useful fool toolbox. That punitive, controlling ideology is now fully in our faces and getting increasingly asinine and violent.
One of the tactics of the radical Left is to create problems where they don't exist, sell them, then "fix" them with the iron fist of government. It's an Alinsky tactic that wasn't original to him. The Maoists, Soviets, Nazis every totalitarian, murderous regime in history has used the idea of telling a lie often enough, using seemingly credible sources, until it eventually became the "truth" in the mind of the average citizen.
One big lie, pushed hard by the Great Demagogue, Barak Hussein Obama, and now rolling under it's own inertia is the idea that America is full of white racists, woman-hating men, homosexual-hating heterosexuals, etc. Fabricated "outrages" like The Great St. Olaf College Racism Hoax of 2017 are corrosive and insidious. Each is another chip out of reality and the brilliant society in which we live.
Do not let these counter-revolutionary attacks pass without reacting. Every time one of these hoaxes is exposed we should publicize it. Put it on social media. Email it (if you still do that). Tell your younger relatives about it. Don't browbeat them, just plant the seed of skepticism (healthy doubt that requires substantive evidence).
(Submitted by Rational Thinker)
On Friday, I looked at HB 141 from the standpoint of individual liberty (Is the HB2 "Repeal" Bad Legislation?).
Today, we're assessing Mark Creech's article What’s Been Lost in the Repeal of HB 2, As I See It.
Dr. Creech's points and my comments on them:
Weak — The idea that transsexuals are not allowed in the other sex's facilities was precisely the claimed reason for Charlotte's ordinance. Not allowed by what? Laws. Local government is the best, most responsive and representative government. The NCGA should not attempt to legislate every conceivable, potential, perceived wrong.
2. HB 2 blocked local governments from requiring “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (SOGI) policies for those who wanted to contract business with them. Roy Cooper contends cities and county governments are now free to apply such requirements. HB 2 had removed all doubt that these laws were invalidated. This is no longer the case.
Reasonable — I'm not aware of such policies heretofore, but they are undoubtedly one of the arrows in the "social justice warriors'" quiver.
3. HB 2 blocked “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (SOGI) provisions from being added to local nondiscrimination laws relating to private employment practices and regulation of public accommodations. The new law, HB 142 – Reset of SL 2017-4, prohibits any such ordinances from being passed until December of 2020; but after that date, any local governments would be free to enact provisions like those passed in Charlotte in February of 2016.
Reasonable — You know this coming. North Carolina is "purple" state, meaning it's not solidly Republican and can potentially be swung to the left. These assaults are coming.
4. Because of their opposition to HB 2, the NCAA, business interests, and other groups have held our state’s economy hostage to its demands. Repealing HB 2 likely emboldens them, as well as possibly others, for additional acts of extortion, which may or may not be related to HB 2.
No and Yes — NC's economy has been growing, not hostage, despite a few boycotts. However, Dr. Creech point is clearly true: The NCGA's move is a Chamberlain-like capitulation to the (truly) radical Left. The NCAA may shut up and hold games in NC, but "peace in our time" didn't materialize and the fascist conquering machine is gearing up.
5. By repealing HB 2, the state loses the moral high ground it established. Repeal introduces doubt as to HB 2’s intent and rightness from the beginning. As N.C. Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest has said, “Such ambiguity undercuts the legitimacy of the law.” HB 2 was reasonable and common sense legislation.
Absolutely! — Clear definitions are critical rule of law. "I'm a woman because I say I am on the inside" is asinine.
6. In repealing HB 2, North Carolina has forfeited its leadership in its stand against the redefinition of sex and gender. HB 2 has always been about much more than bathrooms. Its core issue is the way our culture will ultimately define sex and gender.
Reasonable — It's unclear how critical this is, but other states DID begin to rally behind NC's lead.
(Submitted by Rational Thinker)
Liberty. The practical meaning of the word is that you don't have to like me or what I choose to do with my property (which includes my body, thoughts, money, business, etc.), you just may not infringe on my rights; you may not dictate to me what I shall and shall not do with my property.* You may not dictate what I eat, what sex I think I am, my religious beliefs, and an almost endless list of other personal, adult decisions I make for and about myself. By extension, neither does the government that represents you.
This newest iteration of the "Bathroom Bill" still protects private citizens from the dictates of local governments as to whom may use their restrooms, changing rooms and showers. This was always the fly in the soup. Charlotte's ordinance dictated to private citizens that they must open their facilities to anyone "identifying" as a particular "gender," regardless of the sex organs they actually have. Some believe the General Assembly should have left the matter to the courts, but as this was a clear, unmitigated violation of private property rights, I don't believe the citizens of Charlotte should be forced to "fight city hall" and incur the huge legal bills that would necessarily generate. Sparring citizens from that was an appropriate and good use of state legislative power. After all, the primary responsibility of elected officials is protect the rights of citizens. That is the standard, not whether you can afford to go to and win in court.
This seems clear but if you disagree I urge you to explain your thinking in the "Comments" section.
What are others saying on this issue?
*of course we're talking about competent, adult citizens and decisions that don't infringe the rights of others
Contributor: Matt Horsley
Reform of our criminal justice system is becoming a hot topic in conservative circles, primarily with more libertarian thinkers. Would-be reformers are not a monolithic group with a single set of ideas and goals. Reform ideas include eliminating "mandatory minimum-sentencing," which allows no leeway for judges to evaluate each case, individually, and make allowances for exceptional ones; replacing prison sentencing with intensive drug and alcohol treatment in less expensive and less oppressive settings; decriminalizing behavior that involves only consenting adults; etc.
Overall: Excellent. It was engaging/entertaining, informative and of full-budget production quality
Plot: The movie is divided into two themes. The first exposes and documents the actual record of racism in the Democratic Party. The second makes a compelling case for the corruption of the Clintons on a global scale.
The Bad: There is little to criticize. Out of almost two hours of rapid-fire data and assertions, there were only two points that I thought were a bit weak, but neither were false nor out of context.
Daily Haymaker Article: Moore County school officials address religious liberty concerns
Whether you're a Christian, adherent to some other religion or a non-religious defender of liberty as protected by the US constitution, read this with a critical mind and tell the rest of us what you think. Who's right and wrong? Is there a little of both?