O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law: Murphy was an optimist.
Tweet of the Day
Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Matt 26:67 https://t.co/yd5flGqEc0
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) June 30, 2015
Image of the Day
Tyranny of the Intellectuals
HINT: He's NOT Talking About Obama's Amerika
Facebook Corner
 |
| Via Catholic Libertarians |
(Catholic Libertarians). A society based on lies is destined to suffer a painful death.
"Native American" and "black" are one thing. But is this a libertarian page? Why are we having a problem with people's choices?
Okay, the "gay marriage" troll needs us to explain things REALLY SLOW. Government hasn't regulated the relationships of gays--until now. Just like the natural heterosexual institution of marriage has evolved for thousands of years, gay relationships have had their own history and traditions, without the need to co-opt heterosexual constructs of marriage and family.
Christ Himself has spoken of the essential and permanent (Mark 10). He made clear what He thought of sex outside of traditional marriage "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.Now what do you say?” When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her...."Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
In other words, hate the sin; love the sinner. The gay sinner has free will. He can call his relationships whatever delusional term he wants, including a perverted contortion of "marriage". It's another thing to force socially experiment policy on a voluntary community holding traditional values. Jesus made it clear it is NOT the state which gives marriage meaning; He has constantly distinguished between the earthy corrupt kingdom and the Kingdom of God. GOT IT?
(IPI). Expect the pension crisis to get worse.
Chicago Public School retirees now outnumber active workers.
That means more people are drawing from the pension fund than putting money into it.
The parasites continue to feed on the sinkhole of Chicago--let's recall the same holds true for the police and firemen.
(Reason). The American Civil Liberties Union has formally reversed its support for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The hypocritical ACLU fails to understand the basic concepts of voluntary exchange. When the politically correct/corrupt spokesman says "It’s time for Congress to amend the RFRA so that it cannot be used as a defense for discrimination.", it's presumptuous and begs the question. If I choose to service traditional weddings and leave money on the table; it's not "discrimination"--it's market selection, and if anything else, it provides an opportunity for competitors. Fascists have no moral authority to compel transactions; it is a form of slavery. What the ACLU is doing is promoting the prosecution of Christians who find taking such business to be a violation of religious principle--and make no mistake: this is all about suppressing religious points of view inconsistent with presentist bias.
Err no, if you read the article and the original Washington Post article you'll find that the ACLU isn't saying that it will no longer support religious freedoms, its calling instead for an amendment to a law to prevent companies from using religious freedom impose the beliefs of employers on their employee's, but hey don't let that actual fact of the matter get in the way of a good flame war.
To explain it briefly, if a native American wants to smoke a pipe, or a Sikh grow a beard, thats an individual decision and falls under individual freedom. If a company such as Hobby Lobby decides not to pay for birth control and gets a supreme court ruling to that effect, well thats not individual religious freedom, thats one individual or individuals enforcing belief on others, regardless of cost to the other.
A whole thread of economic illiterates who don't understand salient concepts. First of all, birth control is a periodic expense, not an insurable risk. Second, employers cannot ban employees from doing what they want with their own take home pay including (gasp!) paying for their own birth control instead of socializing its cost. Either birth control is free or it's not. If it's free, it's not a matter of insurance. If it's not free, then HL should get a discount on healthcare costs that is passed on to its employees. Arguing HL by refusing to pay for abortifacients is "imposing" on its employees is a departure from reality. Besides, HL is very explicit about its founders' values; it's a competitive labor market. There are employers willing to pay for killing your next preborn child. As for the hypocritical ACLU, guilty as charged.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Steve Kelley via Townhall |
Dionne Warwick, "This Girl's In Love With You"
