Governor Mike Huckabee is not my candidate for the nomination and I find some of his past comments on taxation to be troubling. Nor am I entirely comfortable with his coziness with the mob bosses at the teachers extortion racket NEA. Bur far more troubling I find the anti-religious bigotry of the New York  media directed towards him as he becomes a viable candidate for the Presidency.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071213/ap_po/huckabee_women;_ylt=Ah_xB_u514.SLQWkH3eNCeQb.3QA

 

He is a Southern Baptist, the liberal thinking goes, so lets saddle him with all the negative stereotypes about the biggest Protestant denomination in the country. He is against sending women to die in combat, therefore he must be anti-woman….only liberal logic could come up with that piece of wisdom. He is pro life, therefore he must be against women. And so on and so forth. For the record I am strongly against sending women into combat, as are a majority of America’s women and the military top brass. Oh yes, you liberals, by the way a plurality of American women (and a majority of women of child bearing age) are pro life. So now, by the logic of these liberals, most women in America are, well, anti-women!!! The fact of the matter is that Governor Huckabee’s views are very much in the mainstream not only of America in general but of American women in particular. It is not a coincident that the biggest women’s organization in the country is Concerned Women for America which dwarfs its smaller but much noisier radical rival, the National Organization of (Radical) Women, by three to one in terms of membership.

 

Logic….never a strong suit of liberals. And it’s getting worse now that it’s compounded by bigotry and NEA run public schools.

Not often, especially these days, are the bland Episcopalians known for bold decisiveness on matters of faith or principles. A church that was once jokingly known as ‘the Republican Party at prayer’ is now controlled by a clique that is best described as the ecclesiastical apologist wing of the Democratic National Committee.  The go along-get along-anything goes mentality has led what was once the spiritual home of the nation’s chief founders to be a decaying, increasingly irrelevant, and atrophied left wing noisemaker. Under the new ‘presiding bishop’ Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the only thing that has changed is that the vacuous leftist ideology is now being imposed by hierarchical extortion upon the few dioceses that have managed to remain true to Biblical teachings during all these decades of radical control of the church’s New York headquarters. Jefferts Schori, in true form of ‘tolerance’ that she preaches to anyone and everyone who cares to listen to this spike haired oceanographer, has sent out letter threatening disciplinary action, property confiscation, and disenfranchisement of parishes and dioceses that refuse to go along with the Episcopal national office’s radical political agenda. Such a letter went out in September to the Very Reverend Robert Duncan, the Episcopal Bishop of Pittsburgh whose reply, sent in November, was a classic reminder of the debt all Christians owe to Martin Luther’s defiance at the Diet of Worms in 1521. Quoting Luther almost verbatim, Bishop Duncan’s short letter tersely declared to Jefferts Schori that “Here is where I stand; I can do no other. I shall remain true to the Biblical faith given to the saints. I will stand by and protect my flock.” What price Bishop Duncan and his flock pay at the hands of Jefferts Schori and her fawning media and judicial acolytes (they had gone agog at her becoming the first female ‘presiding bishop’ of a major national church) is yet to be seen. What has already been seen, however, is that there still remain some Episcopalians who are witnesses for Christ and ready to bear His cross.

The mainstream media, as always, dismissed the very notion that a newly minted Republican-turned-liberal Democrat with organized radical feminist support could ever stoop to sexual harassment of his female employees. We warned them, we pleaded with them to at least give it serious thought; but no, they were too busy destroying an honorable law officer who had gone after the protectors of child molesters in Wichita and Kansas City. After all, former Attorney General Phil Kline was everything the liberals loathed: erudite, conservative, energetic, and a bane to those who preyed upon children. The liberals celebrated when Paul Morrison, the new Democrat, beat Kline, brushing aside serious allegations of sexual harassment, inappropriae conduct, and intimidation from former women subordinates of Mr. Morrison. In fact, Paul Morrison denied everything and claimed that Kline was simply trying to destroy his good marriage.

Well, well, well. Late Sunday night Attorney General Paul Morrison, that champion of women's rights admitted to having a two year affair with a former staffer. Furthermore, he declined to confirm or deny the former staffer's chilling affidavit as to how then DA Morrison forced her to sneak into confidential prosecution files to find dirt on Phil Kline and protect Planned Parenthood (an organization that was indicted today in Kansas City on child abuse charges and has been a major contributor to Morrison's campaign). The victim further claims, claims unrebutted by Morrison, that their sexual liasons took place on courthouse premises and during taxpayer funded trips to judicial conferences.

Adultery, which Attorney General Morrison admitted Sunday night, is a class C felony in the Great State of Kansas. Beyond that, how much he has done to interfere with legitimate prosecution and investigation of cases that Phil Kline was handling, remains to be seen. We have essentially just found out that our chief law enforcement officer is an admitted felon with a track record of sexual harassment, extortion, and obstruction of justice for political ends. If Paul Morrison has any shred of decency left, he should resign right now. But then what decency can we expect from a felon, a habitual liar, and a betrayer of his own family.

More likely than not most Americans will not think of today as anything different than another Friday on the way to fast approaching holiday festivities. It is a pity. For today should be a somber remembrance of what President Roosevelt called ‘a day that will forever live in infamy’. More accurately, December 7 should be a day that reminds us what kind of a people we are. On that day, the armed forces of the Japanese Empire attacked the United States, unprovoked and undeclared. Almost ever it has been in this Republic’s history that she has never gone to a war without provocation and never grabbed foreign territory as a spoil of war. The war that began on December 7, 1941 was no exception. Thus it has an eerie similarity with September 11, 2001 when once again the enemy attacked us unprovoked.

 

The war that began on December 7, 1941 ended almost four years later with Imperial Japan brought to its knees by the forces of the United States and the British Indian Empire. Whether such a clean defeat of the current enemy will happen in our lifetime or not is difficult to predict. What we do know is that the struggle will be every bit as intense and painful. What we also realize is that no matter how peaceful our intentions, such may not be the case with those who wish us harm. There is simply no alternative to being prepared for war. If anything, such a bold and obvious preparation is one of the surest, if not fail safe, deterrents to war. To quote the WWII veteran and anti-war Republican Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon, “the most important task of the B-1 bomber is to assure that it is never used.” Hatfield should know; not only was he a decorated officer but a principled politician who never voted against defense spending and never voted for war.

Two years ago, in an interview panel, Dr. Fareed Zakaria had encapsulated a warning and vision for his fellow Yalie George W. Bush and Congressional Democrats, admonishing them "to not craft policies on terrorism, trade, and immigration on the basis of fear, but rather on the groundswell of American greatness". The advice was somewhat lost on the President, entirely on the Democrats, and is apparently unheard of amongst the current crop of GOP contenders. They should pay heed to Zakaria.

A conservative realist in the mold of his mentor Samuel Huntington, the Indian born Zakaria is the editor of Newsweek, and a  former editor of Foreign Affairs who had been warning about radical Islam long before 9/11 happened. As the son of a prominent couple with impeccable credentials in politics and Islamic scholarship, he should know what makes radical Islam prosper and what makes it wither. As the embodiement of the American dream, a New Yorker to bone, and a father of two kids with New York City photojournalist  Paula Throckmorton Zakaria, his interests are those of America.

Fareed Zakaria's philosophy on policymaking represents that of Ronald Reagan..open, robust, and optimistic as befits the greatest Republic in the history of man. It is a pity that those who claim the mantle of Reagan in 2007-2008, are speaking the language of frightened politicians instead.

I have difficulty sitting up at the PC and writing much, so my readers will forgive me in being short and simply asking them to read the story below and draw their own conclusions.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/22022965/
The names are different but story is the same: another little child murdered by the mother's new sex partner, as is wont in many, many species in nature, from majestic lions to the miniscule rats.
The question is who and where is the judge that is the co-conspirator and chief enabler of Baby Grace's murder? You know, the 'family court' judge that awarded the murderous mother and her murderous boyfriend custody. And don't tell me the judge didn't know that Baby Grace was in danger, removed so many states away from her natural protector, her father. So while the mother and her boyfriend face charges (and I doubt she will serve more than a couple of years in a mental institution at best), the third person responsible, that family court judge, is conveniently enjoying the weekend probably making speeches at a Rotary club about parenting and what not.

I was not going to write today...as I alluded in my previous blog entry. But write I must in the little window of opportunity afforded today for a great American is no more. Former congressman Henry Hyde, a fallible man who was redeemed, passed away today losing his battle with old age at 83 years of age. A fighter for civil rights, family medical leave, human rights, this eclectic Republican was the author of the landmark Hyde Amendment which protects the right of conscience of American taxpayers, Hyde leaves a noble legacy that few of today' members can match. Mr. Hyde was far from a perfect man; rather his background as a young man included actions that are perhaps the most despicable and dastardly of any hornorable individual. Whether he was forgiven for his most repugnant actions by the many victims thereof, I do not know. Nor do I know whether God has forgiven this man that He receives back today in His fold. But if any fallen man can indeed be fit for the Grace of God and His Forgiveness, I suspect it may be someone like Henry Hyde. In his life of public service, Congressman Hyde helped us reach deep into that reservoir of decency and compassion that is the essence of America. He infuriated doctrinnaire Republicans, including former President George HW Bush and yours truly, by standing firm on the issue of federal minimum wage and federally guaranteed family and medical leave....and getting his way. He was hated by the radical liberals for making sure to this day (via the Hyde Amendment) that the spending bills of Congress respected the wishes of the 80 % of Americans who do not want their tax dollars to go towards performing the ghastly task of abortion. And those were just a few of the quirks of the late Mr. Hyde.

And so goes another giants of public service.

Sorry, KsReaganite has been under the weather, doesn't seem to be getting too much better too fast, and on the road. So not too many posts. Yet, briefly have to point out that I found Governor Romney, a man I have endorsed for the Presidency, to be way out of line when attacking John McCain on torture. Nobody on that stage, let alone Romney, has the standing to challenge, decorated officer,  war hero and torture victim McCain on that issue. 

As for Giuliani, we know he lies; his lips move.

Godspeed and Godbless.

I finally had the opportunity to see this year’s somewhat underrated release Amazing Grace. It is one of those rare modern films where a mastery of the cinematography art brings together exceptional acting, a powerful story line, and a very uplifting message. And it is a tale as true as the winter night is long.  I certainly don’t recommend my doctrinaire liberal friends watching it because they will find two of the key themes of the movie very offensive: Christian witness in democratic policy-making and rejection of the idea that one human being owns the life of another.

 Narrating the political life and times of Conservative British Member of Parliament (MP) William Wilberforce, Amazing Grace portrays a man born into privilege and educated at Oxford who goes into Parliament and single handedly takes up the almost impossible task of fighting against slavery. A devout Anglican (the American progeny of which is, alas, the Episcopal Church), Wilberforce struggles between being a ‘man of God’ and a ‘man of politics’ until his conscience and friends convince him that a man of God can indeed be a man of politics and, in times of moral crisis, should be. His first effort to outlaw slavery in the British Empire yields 18 votes in the House of Commons while the other side, funded by slave traders and passionately supported by the enlightened ‘moderates’ of the time, garners over 300 MPs. Fifteen years of tireless education, advocacy, and politicking later the numbers are reversed and in his fifth attempt Wilberforce succeeds in outlawing slavery across the British Empire. By the wayside fall the silly argument that his opponents used that if you were against slavery, you had no right to impose your ‘radical Christian conservative’ views on others. One hundred and eighty years later, the very same arguments are still made today by those who have nothing else to offer in the defense of patent evil.

 What was worthy of note, as a sublime background in the movie, was the character of the man beyond the politician in Wilberforce. Opposition to slavery came perhaps naturally to him. A passionate advocate for preventing cruelty to animals, a critic of child labor, and a legislative friend of orphanages and soup kitchens, Wilberforce seemed to have had an instinctively masculine revulsion to the unfairness of hurting those who are unable to defend themselves. No bleeding heart hippie ‘can we all get along’ type, William Wilberforce was a well dressed, well read, reserved man who enjoyed alcoholic libations, vigorously defended the Monarchy, and found most women to be annoying distractions (and then he met his intellectual match and married Barbara Spooner..lol).

 Reflecting on the film after watching it, I was reminded of Dante’s famous line that ‘the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crises, maintain their neutrality.’

A man is known, it has been often said in many cultures, by the company he keeps. And Bernie Kerik is not the only dubious character that is good buddies with Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Equally troubling, if not more so, in this age of terrorism is one of Rudy’s original cheerleaders, Congressman Peter King of Nassau County. No other federal Republican politician, or for that matter politician of any party, has been so vocal a defender of terrorism, advocate of murderers, and friend of political violence than Representative King. A twenty year long obsessive love affair with the Irish Republican Army (IRA), Europe’s number one terror group, saw Peter King praising IRA terrorists as freedom fighters and fighting their expulsion from the United States. He gleefully raised money in New York for the IRA and was listed as a security risk by both the United States Secret Service and the British intelligence agencies. Of course, the congressman’s tune changed pretty quickly on September 12. 2001, the change landing him a top spot on the House Homeland Security Committee. Indeed elective politics throws up strange ironies sometimes.

 Whether it is just his tune that has changed or his heart as well, is yet to be seen. But the fact that Rudy Giuliani gets counsel on homeland security from a known terrorist sympathizer should give pause to any American.

 http://www.nysun.com/article/15853?page_no=1

http://politicalinsider.com/2007/03/rep_peter_king_endorses_giulia.html

It is rare for me to find fault with a pro-life politician's zeal for protecting unborn children. After all, since my days in college, I have had a simple and straightforward position on the issue: all innocent life should be protected by law, as it has been at common law at least since the time of the Magna Carta, that great charter of life and liberty of the English speaking peoples. For if the law does not protect the most vulnerable and the most innocent of us, what kind of a people are we?

It is with some trepidition, thus, that I consider the remarks made by former governor Mike Huckabee this morning to be imprudent. Rightly he compared abortion to slavery, for both 'peculiar' institutions draw their legal basis not from the will of the American people but from the wilful deceit of unelected judges and the weak hearts of the New England elite who know evil but are too chicken to say anything except "well personally I am..but..". Where Gov. Huckabee overreached, however, is his assertion that states do not have the right to have their own policy with regards to abortion and that the federal constitution should reflect a blanket protection of the unborn. As much as I sympathize with the heartfelt feeling behind that position, I cannot let go the constitutional flaws in it.

The constitution reserves to the states two policy areas that affect abortion directly (and have been wrongly usurped by six unelected men in black robes in 1973): criminal prosecution of local actions and regulation of professions. If the people of California through their elected representatives decide, as is largely (if not exclusively) their prerogative, not to prosecute the murder of children and not to regulate the businesses that conduct such heinous activities, then there is little we can do. By the same token, if the people of Kansas through their elected representatives decide to protect all human life and severely regulate the likes of the businesses run by their own neighbor George Tiller, that is the right and prerogative of the people of that great state. Such is the essence of our federal representative democracy.

Yes, a federal Human Life Amendment will change the issue entirely and give the federal government a mandate to protect all innocent human life. But as Mike Huckabee and KsReaganite both know, the chances of that amendment passing muster in Congress, never mind the three fourths of the states, are less than zero percent. Rather, the very fight over that amendment will embolden the defenders of infanticide and empower further their allies in the mainstream media and, thus, set back the cause of life for years. I hate to be so clinical and almost cold about it....but that is how the atmosphere of the country is right now. And let's not forget that if life has to be defined in the constitution, liberal judges will find numerous other loopholes to force us to define every little thing to forestall their malice.

The solution, federalist and pro-life, then is to have a president who will appoint judges who will overturn the disgrace called Roe v. Wade, and return the issue to the people of the 50 states where it belongs while the federal government-meaning all three branches-gets out kit and kaboodle of the grisly business of abortion. And then the issue can be decided by the people of the several states through their elected representatives after rigorous, open, and informed debate, as is wont in a representative democratic dispensation.

Yes, someday abortion will go the way of slavery and America will live up to the pledge of its founding creed that 'all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights', the first of which is life. It won't happen in Mike Huckabee's lifetime and perhaps not in mine. But happen it will. For as President Lincoln remarked so often, the inherent decency of the American people cannot be suppressed too long, even by their own individual self-interests. We have come a long way: a plurality of Americans are pro-life today (real pro-life not the "personally..but" type), the most pro-life segment of the population is young women of child bearing age, ninety percent of counties no longer have an abortion provider, and Planned Parenthood is terrified that more and more medical school graduates opt out of optional abortion training every school year (no self respecting physician wants to touch murder with a ten foot pole). Yet, we have a long way to go.

Let's not upset the applecart on that journey, Governor Huckabee. The words, the deeds, and the policy choices of the pro-life community have to be prudent, measured, and consistent with the principles of our federal republic. We must win by being more principled, more ethical, and more prudent than the other side. Actually, given the powerful nature of the opposition, that is the only way we can win.

Even with the astute navigation by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, the Democrats got away with sheer, unadulterated nonsense about education. One had to see it to believe it: seven eminent individuals and public servants vying with each other on how to best shortchange the educational achievements of the children of America's middle class. One wanted to recruit 100, 000 math and science teachers, as if such entities are available at Walmart for a post-Christmas discount by the bulk. Another wanted to spend 3 billion to install 'arts, crafts, and music' in public schools, as if the Koreans and the Japanese were outclassing our schools because East Asians play better piano and make paper dolls. Yet another wannabe President wanted the federal government to mandate that school teachers make as much money as engineers, giving ample evidence of this candidate's failng high school economics. What they all agreed on, unfortunately, was a resolve to scuttle any of the reforms that are desperately needed by America's elementary, middle, and high schools, and equally desperately opposed by the labor union rackets NEA and AFT which give millions in dollars and volunteer hours to liberal Democratic campaigns each election. Among the reforms needed by America's schools to compete, and thus opposed by the anti-children labor unions and anti-children Democrats:

-the right of parents to spend their educational tax dollars on the school of choice for their children (so much for Democrats being 'pro choice')

-round the year schools like our competitors in Asia and Europe have

-emphasis on basic mathematics, reading, and science rather than on feel good activities

-rigorous testing of both students and teachers to measure achievement and focus resources in problem areas

-merit based pay bonuses for good teachers

-quick firing of teachers who are lazy, unproductive, or who molest children (like Mary Kay LeTourneau and Debra Lafave)

Of course the multi-millionaire Democrats really don't care about middle class children; their own progeny is safely ensconed in elite private academies where standards are high, testing is rigorous, and teachers are accountable. From there the children of the Clintons and Bidens readily go on to Ivy League schools and the rest is history. It is the middle class that suffers the burden of failing schools, rising taxes, and incompetent or patently dangerous teachers...a dastardly mix of affairs vigorously defended by the mobster bosses at NEA and AFT that are in a perpetual coalition of infamy with the liberal Democrats.

The administration is well advised to be both pragmatic and principled in regards to Pakistani dictator Genral Pervez Musharraf. Granted that unlike his predecessor dictators, Musharraf actually did initially liberalize media constrains and acted againt the most blatant forms of religious and gender discrimination. Whether those steps were to curry favor with Washington DC or out of genuine concern for human liberty is a question that is wont to be asked now that Musharraf has pulled a second coup by the book of his predecessors: imposed strict media curbs, 'suspended' the Constitution. physically removed constitutional judges and replaced them by his hand picked lackeys, asserted his right to try civilians under military law,  jailed thousands and so on and so forth.

Secretary of State Dr. Condoleeza Rice is seemingly still ambivalent about the American approach to Musharraf's latest stunt. That is understandable. A look at our history with Pakistani dictators should help in this regard. Everytime we have hugged a dictator to close in Islamabad, be it Ayub Khan in the 60s, Yahya Khan in the 70s, and Ziaul Huq in the 80s, we seemed to have simply created more anti-Americanism in the region. In the case of Ziaul Huq it turned out to be quite deadly as he used our aid to foster groups that would ultimately become the nucleus of the Taliban. Bottomline is that what dictators say and do can be different things..even when the dictator in question is a well dressed, well spoken son of  a former diplomat (General Musharraf's father was a foreign service officer).

Then there is the Pakistan Army, the principal constituency of Musharraf, the prime reason why he is unwilling to take off his uniform. Born with a heritage and set of battle honors second to none, the Pakistan Army's professionalism  deteriorated very quickly once the officer corps got into politics in the late fifties. Since then that army's greatest successes have been the wholescale butchery of its own people: the former East Pakistan in 1971, Baluchistan in 1977, Karachi in 1987-89.  The episode in East Pakistan was all the more galling in that the same Army that slaughtered a million civilians and raped three hundred thousand women (an episode called the 'ugliest genocide in history' by Pakistan's own top journalist Anthony Mascarenhas), surrendered meekly without a fight when faced with real armed opposition...and thus was born the new republic of Bangladesh. The point here is that despite what wonderful things Paksitan's Ambassador in Washington General Durrani says and what Dr. Rice wants to believe, the Pakistan Army is not the reliable fighting force that we fervently hope it is. No military force whose officers spend their time directing politics, business ventures, sporting organizations-as Pakistani Army's senior officers do-is professionally as good as the military which is disciplined and focused on the science of battles. It is no surprise then that after six years of a manhunt in an area the size of Connecticut, Musharraf's half a million man army equipped with the latest electronic equipment the American taxpayer can afford has not been able to get a whiff of where Osama Bin Laden is.

The Pakistan Army, for all its bravado, is simply not upto the task. Nor is its chief it seems. Let's call a spade a spade finally: Pervez Musharraf is a military dictator plain and simple.

Something miraculous happened in Washington DC earlier this week: the Democratic controlled do-nothing Congress actually DID something! With 104 Democrats joining most Republicans, the House of Representatives passed the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement (FTA), partly thanks to one of those rare glimpses of commonsense that Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) has. The measure is flawed in that it puts burdens on Peruvian manufacturers crafted by liberal Washington bureaucrats and their clueless idealistic allies in the feel-good interest groups, ultimately undermining the full benefits of the agreement. But to get any kind of FTA out of a chamber dominated by leftist radicals is a victory for the American people, for American families, for American jobs, and for the indomitable, prolific (he is the father of seven kids..with the same wife), cigar smoking Ohio Representative John Boehner, the Minority Leader. Boehner held off challenges from within the Republican ranks and kept the liberals' feet to the fire at the same time. The coalition against free trade is a large and powerful one, appealing to the emotions of ordinary people. Some such appeals are purely xenophobic (like that of Lou Dobbs who drives a German car by the way), some are born of misplaced frustration (like those of the working families in the industrial belt), and some are fueled by clueless idealism of middle class grad school students doing internships (hopefully not of the Monica Lewinsky kind) in liberal outfits in Washington DC. None of these opponents of free trade have quite analyzed the economic concepts or the historical reality of free trade. Nor do they understand that the freedom to trade and engage in business is a value so deeply American that even the Supreme Court bluntly proclaimed, with the late Justice George Sutherland writing for it, that 'the business of America is business'.
But beyond the conceptual and historical aspects of free trade, there is a more direct and day to day impact of it on American families. Today, families of limited means are able to purchase household and personal goods at Walmart, Target, and Hy Vees across the nation precisely because free trade with China, India, and other countries has broken the monopoly of local manufacturers whose goods could only be afforded by the select few. And by the same token, swathes of regions of chronic unemployment in the ante-bellum South are booming with record employment rates, high wages, new development, and prosperous families because Toyota and Hyundai and others have invested heavily there.
Free trade is about families. It has given ordinary American families with fixed incomes a shot at living the American dream. No clueless intern who has been born into wealth and fed on Ivy League nonsense can understand that; nor can members of Congress who pay any attention to such garbage from the daughters and sons of their donors who are employed in Washington DC as a favor to the said donors.

One has to give Democrats this: they are masters of cognitive linguistics. Earlier this week, the United States House of Representatives passed the misnamed Employer Non Discrimination Act (ENDA) on a largely party line vote, and now the Senate is beginning its work on it too. The President is promised to veto this anti-freedom measure and one hopes he sticks to his principled position.

 

Under the guise of ‘protecting’ the rights of members of the homosexual community, the bill forbids employers of faith and church affiliated organizations from exercising their beliefs in their workplace. Under the bill, for example, private hospitals sponsored by the Roman Catholic and Missouri Synod Lutheran churches will be prohibited from requiring that their employees live up to the their respective codes of conduct. Small business owners who have a moral objection to homosexuality will be forced to hire practicing homosexuals or face tough federal prosecution. The bill, in other words, is a direct assault on the First Amendment and the right of individuals to live their lives according to the dictates of their own conscience.

 

It also shows the rank hypocrisy of liberal Democrats. The people championing ENDA and trying to force their morals on the rest of America are the same ones who never lose an opportunity to lecture the rest of us about how fetal infanticide should be left up to the individual moral compass of each person participating in that grisly act. Pray tell, my liberal friends, why cannot I exercise the same individual moral compass when it comes to who I choose to hire to work for me? Let me guess….hmmm…is it because the lambda lobby gives millions in campaign contributions and unborn children don’t?

 

There is a reason that religious liberty is enunciated in the very First amendment to the Constitution. And ultimately the liberal Democrats’ ENDA makes a brutal frontal assault on that fundamental principle of freedom of conscience. Whether my conscience and religious beliefs prescribe or proscribe homosexuality is not the business of Congress or any state legislature. Nonetheless, repeatedly over the last several years Democratic governors and legislatures from Oregon to Illinois to Massachusetts have attacked the First Amendment rights of religious liberty and free speech. A lower federal judiciary mostly staffed with Clintonite bigots has largely acquiesced to government actions that range from suppressing free speech on Boston streets to forcing Oregon pharmacists and nurses to choose between their faith and their jobs.

 

This is America, a Republic founded by those whose ancestors escaped tyrants that wanted to own their conscience. No man or woman ought to be forced to choose between a conscience and a livelihood. Increasingly under liberal Democratic rule, however, that is exactly what is happening. And if Hillary Clinton becomes president, all the stops will come off.