The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense


“…I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.… It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.” - Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775


"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell

(c) copyright 2011-2016 Doug Johnson All Rights Reserved. All site content is copyright protected and subject to penalties for infringement of copyright laws.

Monday, June 30, 2014

SCOTUS Ruling Gives America A Chance To Avoid 1000 Years Of Darkness

Here's the Nonsense:  While today's Supreme Court decision about birth control is important, it's just one of the issues that needed to be dealt with but certainly not the most important one.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Today's Surpreme Court decision is not just about birth control, it's about the most important freedom American's enjoy.  It is critical if America is to survive as a constitutional republic.

I've said that America is about to fall into the thousand years of darkness that Ronald Reagan warned us about.  And with that I've said that two issues this year would determine whether there is still a chance to save our nation.  One of those issues was ruled on by the Supreme Court this morning.  That is the issue of religious freedom and was brought to the court in what most know as the Hobby Lobby case.  The ruling of SCOTUS gives hope for America.  It is the first of two issues America must deal with this year and that are pivotal in the fight to save our nation.

The battle to save our constitutional republic focuses on many areas, but this year there are two that are pivotal in whether we will still have a chance to save America.  One was ruled on this morning by the Supreme Court, the other will be the outcome of the midterm elections in November.  And with the SCOTUS ruling, which protects religious freedom, the most important of the two has been won and should give hope and new energy in our fight for our nation.

While many are writing today about the four drugs that are the basis of the specific objection of the companies involved in this case, and others are writing about women's "rights" and even about Christians forcing their beliefs on the population of the U. S. (and those are all valid and interesting discussions), I would like to remind all of us of how important religious freedom is to Americans and why it is the basis of the single most important amendment to our constitution.

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;  or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;  or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  

Notice that the very first thing that is addressed is religious freedom?  Why?  Because they understood how important freedom of thought and belief was to all freedoms.  Without that freedom, all other freedoms fall apart.  It is the foundation stone upon which a free society is built and secured.

To understand the importance of religious freedom we must look at a brief history that led up to and dramatically affected the mindset of many of our nation's founders as our nation was formed.  Much of the beliefs were based on the thoughts of John Locke.  Locke was especially influential when it came to his views regarding the repeal of the French Edict of Nantes.

The French King Henry IV, as Wikipedia shows, was King of Navarre (as Henry III) from 1572 to 1610 and King of France from 1589 to 1610.  He was baptized as a Catholic but raised in the Protestant faith by his mother, the Queen of Navarre, he inherited the throne of Navarre in 1572 on the death of his mother.  As a French "prince of blood" by reason of descent from King Louis IX, he found it prudent to abandon his Calvinist Protestant faith.  His coronation was followed by a four-year war against the Catholic League to establish his legitimacy.  He promulgated the Edict of Nantes in 1598, which guaranteed religious liberties to Protestants, thereby effectively ending the Wars of Religion.


The Edict of Nantes gave Protestants the right to hold public worship in many parts of France, except in Paris.  The Huguenots (Protestants) were granted full civil rights and a special court was established to settle disputes arising from the edict.  The schools at Montauban, Montpellier, Sedan and Saumur were permitted to be Huguenot.  One hundred cities were given to the Huguenots for an eight year period.  For areas where Catholicism had been interrupted, they were reestablished and extensions, by Protestants, into these Catholic areas were prohibited.   

Pope Clement VIII and the French Catholic clergy disagreed with the Edict of Nantes.  In 1629, the chief minister of King Louis XII annulled the edict’s political clauses.  In 1685, Louis XIV revoked the entire edict and took away the civil and religious liberties of French Protestants.  Within just a few short years more than 400,000 French Protestants had emmigrated to other countries, which severely impacted the French economy.  (A separate study of the impact of Protestantism on an economy is not a topic many people find easy to accept, but will reveal that Protestantism was a core ingredient in the rise of prosperity in nations where it flourished, especially America).  Those Protestants who were still in France did not see their civil rights restored until the French Revolution of 1789 – 1799.

With that history in mind, Locke wrote A Letter Concerning Toleration in 1689 where he shows that Martin Luther's work in the Protestant Reformation created views that each person should access God through individual prayer and Bible study and not rely on a church to determine a relationship with God.  This is often known as the priesthood of the believers, where Luther embraced the original New Testament teaching that each believer is seen as a priest serving God.  That belief puts the individual in a position above the church and the state, with direct access to God and truth. 

Each person now had the duty and right to seek this truth from God, through both the Bible and through nature.  The church and the state exist to support and protect the rights of the individual.  There is a separation between church and state because their jurisdiction is limited to their separate spheres of concern:  spiritual and civil.  The separation is of equality and mutual respect, with each respecting the sovereignty of the other in its own sphere.

Thus the individual's rights resulted from the duties that they owe to God, thereby also placing a resistance to the state when it tries to infringe on the spiritual rights of man before God.  This was the underlying thought that was embraced by many of America's founders, and thereby inspired the thoughts behind the First Amendment.  

The right to freedom of religion includes the right to freedom of thought and belief.  Without that right, there is no foundation for any freedom.  This is why the Supreme Court's decision today is critical if we are to maintain a chance at turning our nation back to what it was founded to be. Our freedoms depend on it.  

Now, the second most important event in 2014, the midterm elections, are in November and will determine how big the task ahead of us is to restore America's constitutional republic.  From what we've seen in the primaries it is a huge task that if we embrace will mean it will take many generations to turn this country back to what it was founded to be.  If we are successful, our children and grandchildren will have to pick up the mantle from us and carry the battle on so that their grandchildren will have the nation our founders gave us.




Monday, June 23, 2014

Is Hillary Throwing Obama Under The Bus?

Here's the Nonsense:  The new book by Edward Klein about the feud between the Clintons and Obamas is nothing but gossip, but it does tell us a lot about them from behind the scenes.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Klein's new book may or may not be accurate, but it certainly may be that he's being used as a tool for the Clintons and doesn't even know it.  The Clintons may just be using him to help throw Obama under the bus.

Speculation of a presidential run by Hillary Clinton has gone on for years. Today she's touted as being the best candidate the Democrats could run, but things in her past haunt her, especially the Benghazi disaster.  Now a new tell-all book may be doing more than just giving a glimpse behind the curtain.  It may be an opportunity the Clinton's are using to attempt to throw President Obama under the bus regarding what happened in Benghazi.

In his new book, Blood Feud, author Edward Klein has written another book opening the doors to what are supposed to be secret, accurate accounts about key figures in American political life.  This time the book is supposed to uncover the hatred between the Clintons and the Obamas.  Unfortunately all too often in these types of books, the sources are not named and quotes are written on condition of anonymity. So, while Klein may have sources he's used to come up with the stories in the book, I wonder if some of those sources might just be planted to get Klein to put out information that will benefit the Clintons.  And Klein might not even realize it.

What makes me wonder about this is what Klein writes about the Benghazi tragedy and Hillary's involvement.  The New York Post has published an article by Klein about this section of the book.  It says:

“Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,” one of her top legal advisers said in an interview. “Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.”
This adviser continued:  "Hillary told Obama, 'Mr. President, that storny isn't credible.  Among other things, it ignores the fact that the attack occurred on 9/11.'  But the president was adamant.  He said, 'Hillary, I need you to put out a State Department release as soon as possible.'"  After her conversation with the president, Hillary called Bill Clinton, who was at his penthouse apartment in the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, and told him what Obama wanted her to do. 

“I’m sick about it,” she said, according to the legal adviser, who was filled in on the conversation. “That story won’t hold up,” Bill said. “I know,” Hillary said. “I told the president that.” “It’s an impossible story,” Bill said. “I can’t believe the president is claiming it wasn’t terrorism. Then again, maybe I can. It looks like Obama isn’t going to allow anyone to say that terrorism has occurred on his watch.” 

That story clearly points the blame at Obama for the mass deception about what happened on that terrible night in Benghazi.  And that would be just what Hillary would want to try to distance herself from responsibility, especially if she decides to run for president in 2016.  

The Benghazi scandal is the key issue that could derail a run by Hillary for the presidency.  Even though no one, not even Hillary herself, has been able to list a single accomplishment of any part of her role as Secretary of State (or any other part of her life including as First Lady and senator), Benghazi is the one issue that could hurt her.  

Everyone is willing to look past her worthless and unaccomplished career, but what happened in Libya haunts her.  It will be a critical issue that Republicans would try to keep at the forefront of the news should she run in 2016.  If the Clintons can successfully make the public believe that she was not responsible and Obama was, then they have a chance at making her look like a victim that was just following orders (Not a good defense, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't try to make it work.).

The Clintons are known for doing whatever it takes to win, even if it means blaming others (ask the women who had to deal with them when Bill got himself in trouble with sex scandal after sex scandal).  And even though Klein writes the book with the idea that some undisclosed source has revealed this, I would like to suggest that it wouldn't be surprising to find that the Clinton's made sure this story got into the book in an effort to try to clear Hillary of responsibility.  Klein's sources may very well have been planted to make sure he got the information they wanted made public.

I am still not convinced that Hillary will run in 2016.  She ran in 2008 and it was said the nomination was hers for the taking long before the primaries started. But something changed during that primary season (a story too long to go into here) and suddenly she was pushed out of the way for Obama.  That could happen again.  The media was sure she had the nomination in 2008 and they're sure now.  They've certainly been wrong about enough things in the past that their view should not be taken that seriously.

But the Clintons play every side of issues until they decide what they are going to do. Right now they are positioning themselves so they're ready should they decide that Hillary will run.  If she doesn't, this story still helps to clear her name for her legacy.  The looming question that remains is whether this story will cause retaliation by the Obamas against them.








 

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Most Conservatives Are Missing The Most Important Story This Week

Here's the Nonsense:  There are a lot of important stories in the news. Raising awareness about any of them is good enough.  We just need to make sure people are educated.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Many stories in the news are important and need to be brought to the public's attention.  But there is one this week that overrides them all and is not getting the attention it needs.  There are only a few days left to do anything about it.

There are big headlines this week that should be addressed, but the most important one is not being given the priority it needs to have.  Today as I write this it is Sunday, June 15.  On June 19 the vote on a replacement for Majority Leader Eric Cantor's replacement will be held.  The person who gets this position is a huge determiner of where the Republicans in Congress are headed.  With so few days to build support for a conservative candidate, every conservative media source should be hammering home the importance of the pressures that need to be put on our representatives to vote the right way.  But instead, I see very little being written or spoken about it.  The conservative media are too focused on other stories that, while important, are not near as urgent as this one because this one only has a few days to succeed or die.  And if it dies, it will be another blow to conservatism and the elimination of one of the last chance's to get Congress under control.

The important stories in today's news are mind-boggling in both content and number.  Just a sample of those vying for the position of most important include:  

1.)  A little reported story in Iraq that Americans were evacuated except for about 100 American contractors.  They were left to fight off the terrorist insurgents of ISIS who had surrounded the air base outside of Baghdad where they were trapped.  American flights getting our people out had ceased at the end of last week and those 100 remained fighting to keep ISIS from taking over.  Obama wouldn't commit to even sending air strikes to help them while they get out.  Sound familiar?  Leaving Americans behind, whether it's in Benghazi, Libya or Iraq doesn't seem to matter to this administration. The only ones he shows any worry to get out of harm's way are those that appear to be deserters (pronounced "Bergdahl").  Certainly this is an important story, especially given the urgency those people are facing.  But it should be a no-brainer that we should always, ALWAYS go back for our own and use any means necessary to get them out.

2.)  Certainly another important story is the bigger story of Iraq's fall to ISIS overall.  The Guardian reports that even Iran has sent in troops to help Iraq.  Iraq and Iran have asked the U. S. for help, but we have a president who says he'll think about it, and then gives some poppycock story about needing to get a commitment from Iraq as to their willingness to be open to political negotiations before he'll do anything.  Then he heads to a golfing weekend.  

We shouldn't have left Iraq when we did or how we did.  Even if we made a mistake going to war there doesn't mean that you leave people without help who clearly are not able to help themselves.  I heard K. T. McFarland say last week that Bush shouldn't have gone into Iraq and Obama shouldn't have left Iraq.  I think those are some pretty accurate words.

3.)  If those stories aren't enough, the Daily Mail is reporting that the IRS is now saying that those two years of Lois Lerner's emails that the House had subpoenaed have been lost due to a computer problem.  Isn't that convenient?  As the bloodhounds get closer and closer to the truth, the key email evidence in the investigation are suddenly lost.  

Hey, I've got an idea.  Why doesn't the investigating committee just subpoena them from the NSA?  No matter what they tell us, we all know they have them (and every other electronic communication of any kind from every American).  Privacy is non-existent in America anymore, so let's at least use this wicked system the government has set up to spy on all of us to get information we need to ferret out some real crime.

And the list of stories goes on and on.  

But as important as they are, they pale in comparison to Idaho Republican Raul Labrador choosing to run against Kevin McCarthy for the Majority Leader position in the House of Representatives.  Most people won't even read this until tomorrow, June 16.  That means they have only 3 days to make an impact that will push the election Labrador's way.  As liberal as Cantor's establishment Republican views are, McCarthy is much further to the left.  That will only enable John Boehner and his buddies to continue to give in to this administration and sell America out.  Getting someone like Labrador into a high leadership position like Cantor has held gives conservatives a voice in leadership and a chance to push back to get control of our nation again.

The establishment GOP won't easily give up their power and their ill-conceived notions of where to take America.  Eric Cantor's loss in his primary election this past week was good news for conservatives.  But it's not enough.  

Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele is now suggesting that Cantor should get his old job as head of the RNC.  That would ensure an ongoing stranglehold by the establishment on the RNC.  With Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy being pushed into Cantor's old job as Majority Leader, the establishment shows it has learned nothing and intends on business as usual, which is a death sentence for America.

With so little time left before this soon to be held election, it's imperative that EVERYONE is contacting their representatives and putting pressure on them to vote for Labrador.  The primary elections this spring have not gone very well for conservatives.  If we miss this chance, we've just given up one of our last hopes at successfully turning America around.

So, if you're in the media you should be writing and talking about this over any other story for the next few days.  Conservative citizens should be putting pressure on their representatives and talking to everyone they know and meet to do the same.  Until June 19th, nothing else matters.  



Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Cantor Primary Loss Is Not As Much Good News As Conservatives Think

Here's the Nonsense:  Eric Cantor's defeat is proof that Congress will return to the control of conservatives in the midterms this fall.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Eric Cantor's defeat is good news, but there are a lot of signs that it is minor compared to the work we have left to do to save America.

Eric Cantor, the second most powerful Republican in the House GOP leadership, lost his primary election in Virginia yesterday.  The left is screaming that the extremist Tea Partiers have impacted the GOP.  The establishment GOP are worried about the undermining of their control and power.  Conservatives are excited and enthusiastic about the future, but they need to be careful and realize that this is not the victory they're thinking it is.

Certainly it's very good news that Eric Cantor has lost his primary.  The major reason was his stand on immigration amnesty, but it's also due to voter frustration with the establishment GOP having sold them out for power.  Voters in Virginia had the wisdom to do their homework and throw Cantor out, something the rest of the nation should learn from.  Voters that are paying attention, which are few in number, are fed up with Washington and both the Democrats and establishment Republicans.  If they'd band together and educate the majority of voters, this could happen across the nation.

A perfect example of what didn't happen in this year's primaries (but should have) is Senator Lindsey Graham's win.  Conservatives across the nation have come to despise the positions that Lindsey Graham and his buddy John McCain have taken over the years.  They have sided more with Democrats than the voting base.  But somehow the voters in Graham's district keep electing him. It's hard to believe in a strongly red state like South Carolina.  

And that's the problem we need to be aware of while we bask in the glow of conservative victory against Cantor.  If Graham can still win in a state that brought us Jim DeMint (a sad loss to the Senate when he retired) and Trey Gowdy, then we have to be very careful not to get overconfident when someone like Eric Cantor is defeated in Virginia.  

Cantor's defeat is reason for celebration, no doubt.  But the fact that Graham can still win says that we've got a very long road to take this country back.  We should use the Cantor defeat to inspire us to dig in our heels and work even harder to try to save America.  

There are many bad things happening in our country and little will be done to hold this administration accountable.  But the key to victory against the progressives in both the Democrat party and the establishment Republicans is educating our fellow voters.  Few American voters really know what's happening in our country.  If we don't educate them they will continue to reelect the Lindsey Graham's to office.  The fact that we haven't done that already and establishment GOP candidates did extremely well in the primaries this year may already have doomed our chances.  

But we must continue the fight, which means putting such pressure on the establishment GOP that they move to the right and embrace the conservative values to which Americans hold.  You can bet the establishment GOP will be doing everything in their power to see that Tea Partiers are defeated in November, even though it would mean more control by the Democrats.

The chances of saving America hinge on two issues this year.  The first will be yet this month when the Supreme Court rules on religious freedom in the Hobby Lobby case.  America was founded by the people whose families came here fleeing religious persecution and seeking freedom and opportunity.  It's the cornerstone of our nation.  If it fails, our freedoms are doomed.

If it does fail, the only chance to save it will be dependent on the results of the midterm elections this fall.  If we don't get control of Congress back in the hands of the people, there will be no stopping whoever is president now or in 2016.  We have 5 months before those elections.  If religious liberty fails in the Supreme Court this month, only a successful takeover of Congress can bring it back.  And if it's not brought back by the Congress elected in November, it will be too late to get it back in the future.

Sunday, June 8, 2014

California Chrome Won The Belmont Stakes?

Here's the Nonsense:  The Triple Crown is a tough set of races.  It doesn't matter that the rules are set up to create less of a chance for a winner.  Either you win or not, even if your competition is allowed to be more rested.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The Triple Crown is really not set up properly for an honest competition. Horses are allowed to compete in any of the 3 races without competing in the Triple Crown.  But this puts horses who haven't endured as much physical stress in competition with fresh horses and thereby reduces the chances of a Triple Crown win.  

Much of America was hoping for California Chrome to win the Belmont Stakes on Saturday, which would have made him the first Triple Crown winner in horse racing in 36 years.  However, for those of us who watched the race, disappointment set in when he ended up in a dead heat for 4th place.  But did he really lose the Triple Crown, or are we not hearing the whole story?

After the race pictures, were taken of an injury to California Chrome's foot.  No one was sure how he got injured, but it was said to be a painful injury.  That alone could be good reason for a finish short of first place.  But while that's a sad thing that may have robbed him of better performance, the real question is how the competition is held.  

One of the things that many people don't realize is how exhausting these races are to these horses.  First the Kentucky Derby, which is a monumental win for any horse, followed by the Preakness, another demanding race, and finished up with the Belmont, the longest and toughest of the three races, the Triple Crown is nothing short of grueling for any horse to complete, let alone win.  

But is it right that horses can choose to compete in only one or two of the races instead of all three?  Are the chances of winning the Triple Crown harder for those who compete in all 3 because their win could be undermined by a horse that is fresher and able to run at a different level of performance because they do not have the earlier races taxing their bodies?  That's what some are claiming and it's a reasonable inquiry.

If the Triple Crown is to be a true ultimate test of 3 year old race horses, then shouldn't the Triple Crown be limited to horses only competing in all 3 races?  Sure, if you don't compete in all 3 races, you can't win the Triple Crown.  But if, as happened Saturday, a number of horse owners chose not to compete for the Triple Crown and so they hadn't participated in one or both of the races prior to the Belmont.  The result was that their horses were racing for the win of the single event of the Belmont and due to their rested state were able to compete at a different level than horses competing for the Triple Crown.  Because they could win the Belmont without being Triple Crown competitors means that the Triple Crown contenders have a reduced chance at winning.

California Chrome was only beaten by horses that had not competed in both races before the Belmont.  Technically, he came in first of the horses that competed in all 3 races.  So, of those horses, he was the winner.  Wouldn't it only be right for horse racing to make the Triple Crown only allow horses in each of the 3 races that are competing for that title?  That would show a true competition of the horses who went the distance by running in the Kentucky Derby, Preakness, and Belmont Stakes.

I'm sure no one is going to change the way things have been done for all the years the Triple Crown has been run.  But it's too bad because little California Chrome had won the hearts of Americans and it would have been nice if he'd won the Triple Crown title, too.

Regardless of why California Chrome may not have won the Triple Crown, he's won the hearts of America.


Thursday, June 5, 2014

Republican Promises President Won't Be Held Accountable For Bergdahl Swap For Taliban Leaders

Here's the Nonsense:  There will be accountability for President Obama on the Bergdahl-Taliban swap because so many people are upset.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Not only will there be no accountability on this issue, there will never be any accountability for any issue with this president.  He truly can get away with anything.

With all the uproar about the Bowe Bergdahl release and swap for 5 Taliban prisoners, nothing will come of holding President Obama accountable for his illegal actions.  Once again, the establishment GOP won't do their job by making the president feel consequences for his actions.  The Hill is reporting that spineless establishment GOP Senator Lindsey Graham said, “It’s going to be impossible for them to flow prisoners out of Gitmo now without a huge backlash.  There will be people on our side calling for his impeachment if he did that.”  

That's supposed to be accountability?  No, it's wishy washy leadership that moves the line instead of taking action when something wrong has been done.  It's no different than a parent who tells their child if they do something there will be consequences, and then when the child does it the parent warns them again that one more time and they'll be in trouble.  That's all the establishment GOP has done with this president and they're doing it again.  They will never hold him accountable for anything.

Obama truly is the teflon president where nothing sticks to him.  He's a man-child who throws temper tantrums when he doesn't get his way (Remember how he's complained about how the Constitution constrains him?) and is never held accountable by Congress, whose job it is according to the Constitution to do just that.  We have a rogue president ignoring our laws and a Congress that refuses to do their jobs.  Senator Graham's comment that if the president releases another Gitmo detainee without notifying Congress, as required by law, that then there will be people calling for impeachment.  Then, not now.  Not now when he's just broken the law (for the 77th time!) they won't stand up and demand he be held accountable. 

All Graham has proven with his statement is that they don't have the spine to do their jobs and so they just keep moving the line.  Nothing will happen to this president because they are too afraid of going against America's first black president.  It's that simple.  It may be politically incorrect to say it, but it's true.  And it's about time people start to speak truth instead of worrying about political correctness.

What may be worse than Congress not doing their job is that the American voters aren't doing theirs.  Our Founders created a system of government that was to be controlled by the people, but we've allowed it to be hijacked by politicians and now it's so out of control it may be impossible to get it back.  Frankly, as I wrote in No Tomorrows, we've gotten the government we deserve.  We have no one to blame but ourselves.  As bad as the politicians in Congress are, we've allowed them to get into power and stay there.

So, even though the military says that they will investigate whether or not Bergdahl is a deserter, that really isn't the issue.  (And, by the way, the military are now saying that no matter what they find in their investigation there is little chance that Bergdahl could be punished because he's already gone through so much.  They're showing the same lack of spine that Congress is.)  The real issue is that President Obama is responsible for what happened.  Even though this is the 77th time he's broken the law (see my last two posts for links to proof of those illegal actions), nothing will come of it.  And the result is that America becomes even weaker and our freedoms continue to be lost because we the people have not done our job.

Sunday, June 1, 2014

Judge: Christians Don't Have Same Rights As Other Americans

Here's the Nonsense:  Christians should have their rights withheld because they are the worst of all who discriminate.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The stories of discrimination on the part of Christian business owners are not only being inaccurately reported, they miss the real point, which is the loss of First Amendment rights for ALL Americans.

After ruling against a Christian business owner and having his ruling upheld, a Denver judge has said that only Christians should be required to violate their beliefs while other groups should not be subjected to the same requirements.  This is an explicit violation of the religious freedoms guaranteed under the First Amendment, yet the message is clear:  Christians are to be treated as a lower class in America and will not be allowed to have the same freedoms as other citizens.  

Anyone with the IQ of a small soap dish should understand that if Christians are targeted to lose their freedoms today, it will be another group tomorrow, and another one the day after that.  It isn't IF you will lose your freedoms, it's when.  This isn't just about Christians, it's about freedom for every American.  This is the single most important issue we face for the future of our nation.

On Friday the Colorado Civil Rights Division upheld a judge's ruling that Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakes, must make wedding cakes for gay customers.  But the story isn't being reported honestly in the media who claim that it is about discrimination against two men who are gay.  

A homosexual couple had gotten married in Massachusetts (where gay marriage is legal) and wanted to celebrate their wedding in Colorado (where gay marriage is not legal).  They went into Phillips' business and asked that a cake be made to celebrate their wedding.  Phillips, a devout Christian, will not use his artistic ability to celebrate, promote, or give any form of support to things that go against his faith.  His business declined to make the cake decorated the way that was requested, but he was willing to sell them anything else they wanted.  He was willing to sell them a cake with no wedding decoration on it.  He was even willing to help them find a baker who would make what they wanted.  But that wasn't good enough.  The couple filed suit, with the help of the ACLU, claiming discrimination.

Sadly, many people can't see this as anything other than discrimination.  They try to liken it to when blacks were refused service at restaurants decades ago.  But there's a difference.  Phillips didn't refuse to do business with the homosexual couple.  He just asked that he not be put in the position of violating his conscience, which is the conscience of a man of Christian faith.  If he'd have refused to do business with the couple because they were homosexual that would be discrimination.  That's different than saying you'll do business with someone but won't violate your conscience if their request would mean you'd have to do something against your principles.

I am reminded of a call I received in my consulting business a few years ago.  A man wanted me to build a marketing program for a new business.  He showed me his business plan and all the details.  It would have been something I could have easily built to a success.  The contract was worth considerable money to my business.  But I declined the opportunity because it violated my conscience.  The business owner was stunned and asked me to tell him why.  I explained that his business was something that, while legal and an idea that certainly could be very successful, was something that I couldn't support.  He wanted to open a business that would give people a unique way to borrow money, even with poor credit, but at extremely high interest rates.

I don't believe that debt is good.  In fact, I take the Biblical position that teaches we are to owe no man anything and that a borrower is a slave to the lender.  I don't believe that just because something is legal that it is moral.  I do believe that taking advantage of people with obscenely high interest rates on loans is immoral.  As a result, I could not be a part of it.  

The business owner reminded me that it was his business and it wasn't the same as me owning it.  I politely told him that if I helped build his business I was, in essence, supporting a business concept that immorally took advantage of people.  He was very polite and thanked me for my time and then closed our conversation by saying that he was really impressed that someone would walk away from such a large amount of money based on principle.  But that's the point.  If you have principles, it's never about money.  It's about something much bigger to you.

Refusing to make a cake to celebrate a gay wedding is not the only thing Jack Phillips won't do.  He also doesn't believe in celebrating Halloween, which many Christians see as a Satanic holiday, but he'll be happy to make you a cake celebrating autumn or harvest time.  He won't make an erotic or sexually suggestive cake.  He won't make anything that conflicts with what he believes.  In other words, he's a man of character and conscience whose principles come first.

Yet Jack Phillips will make anyone anything else they'd like.  He'll happily use his talent to make you a special treat that is very unique.  But that's not good enough anymore in America.  Even though he will do business with anyone, because he stands on his principles he has now been targeted as a hater, a bigot, an evil man.  From everything I've heard he's anything but what he's accused of being.

Earlier Judge Robert Spencer in Denver had ruled against Phillips threatening him with fines and jail time if he did not make wedding cakes for gay customers.

WND reports:
"Spencer’s ruling said Phillips’ constitutional rights are secondary, because otherwise the 'cost to society' isn’t considered. He granted homosexuals a special standard.

"But the ACLU, which is representing the duo [the gay couple who brought suit], said the same standard should not be used in other circumstances, such as asking a Muslim baker to make a cake criticizing his faith or asking a black cake maker to make a cake for the KKK.

"Those bakers, because of their beliefs, would be allowed to refuse service, Spencer said.

Spencer bluntly offered cake makers an alternative: 'They can quit.'"

(note: The quote above refers to a Muslim baker being asked to make a cake criticizing his faith. This is no different than what Jack Phillips was asked to do because making a cake celebrating a gay wedding goes against the teachings of his religion, which in essence would be criticizing his own faith.)

So, if you profess to be a Christian, you've just lost your First Amendment rights.  You no longer have the same rights as others in America.  Other religious persons, such as Muslims, have those rights even though their beliefs are not in agreement with the left either.  If Christians don't like it, they can give up their business.  But Muslims are allowed to stay in business and believe and do as they choose. 

But why should a Muslim baker be given different rights than a Christian?  Christians have been painted as bigots and evil, but Muslims aren't seen that way.  Both religions teach that homosexuality is wrong, although how they deal with it is dramatically different.  

Muslims believe that homosexuals should be put to death.  While there are no cases I know of in America where this has happened, in countries that are controlled by Islamic law, the laws demand death for a homosexual.  In fact, as I wrote in a recent post, the Beverly Hills Hotel has been under boycott because it's owner is the Sultan of Brunei and he instituted a penal code in his country that designates numerous things as crimes, including homosexuality, and gives the death penalty for them.  This is not uncommon in countries under Islamic law.
 
Muslims, believe that they must kill someone who is gay because it goes against the teachings they believe are from Allah (Allah is their God and, contrary to the people who think otherwise, it is not the same God as the God that Christians believe in).  Muslims believe they are to take the action of killing the person. 

Christians, on the other hand, are simply refusing to do work that would cause them to violate their conscience.  That's quite different than calling for the death of homosexuals.  Christians believe that sinners who have not repented from their sins and been forgiven through faith in Jesus do not go to heaven, but go to hell.  It doesn't matter what the sin is.  Yes, Christians see homosexuality as a sin as spelled out by God in the Bible. But any sin, not just homosexuality, will keep you from heaven.  Christians are not the ones keeping someone from heaven.  That person's sin is.  And Christians simply believe that God makes the rules by which we must live to enter heaven and that God does not leave those rules open for debate.  

Christianity teaches that God deals with the person and that it is not Christians who are to be killing people.  In fact, Christians are commanded to love people.  But we must also understand that loving someone does not mean they have to accept or condone every action that person takes.  If you're a parent and your child makes a choice you disagree with that doesn't mean you don't love them.  For example, if a child decides to take drugs or move in with their girlfriend or boyfriend outside of marriage it would be very common for a parent to disapprove.  That doesn't mean the parent doesn't love the child.  In fact, it is an act of love to tell someone that you believe what they are doing is wrong.  That may be the only time they hear someone challenge them to reconsider their actions.     

Christianity doesn't teach what Islam does when it comes to how to deal with homosexuality. Christians are to warn people that their actions, homosexuality or any other thing that the Bible teaches is sin, will keep them from heaven.  Christianity teaches that if you repent of your sins and embrace faith in Jesus that you can, through God's grace, be redeemed.  Redemption is at the core of Christianity.

Muslims don't believe in grace and redemption.  They believe you submit to Islam or die.  And that death is to be at the hand of Muslims.

So, Christians are actually far more tolerant than Muslims, but yet Christians are seen as the intolerant ones and their rights are taken away while Muslims are allowed to continue in their views unchallenged.  

In America we've reached the point where our court system can now act totally irrationally by putting political correctness over logic.  To say that a Muslim would not be required to do what they are requiring Mr. Phillips to do makes absolutely no rational sense.  Yet this judge actually is foolish enough to think it is logical.  His ruling is devoid of common sense.  Virtually any first grader would see the inconsistency in what's happening.  But political correctness requires an abandonment of all common sense.

You might not think much about this issue, but the fact is that it's the single most important issue that will determine the future of America.  First Amendment rights trump everything else.  If you find yourself feeling that the most important issue for America's future is one of these:

  • NSA spying
  • the IRS scandal
  • the blatant law-breaking of President Obama (and if those 76 aren't enough, click here for a new one from last week when President Obama illegally traded 5 terrorists in Gitmo for an American prisoner held by the Taliban)
  • Second Amendment rights
  • Agenda 21
  • pro-life issues
  • healthcare
  • Common Core
  • or anything else

then you don't understand the importance of the First Amendment.  

If you lose the right to speak, think and believe as you choose, then all other rights are already gone.

Freedom for Christians is over in this world.  Christianity is the most persecuted religion on the planet.  Those same freedoms will be taken away from people of other beliefs in the future.  They're just making Christians the first target.  And I promise you, whether you want to believe it or not, you're next.