Nesselbush Distorts Roger Williams, RI Legacies

Sen. Donna Nesselbush

State Senator Donna Nesselbush (D-Pawtucket), an ambitious, brazen, and openly gay politician, recently attacked the Indiana state legislature and Governor for passing a law which protect the civil rights, i.e. the religious  liberties of individuals, small businesses, churches, and charities, granting them a stronger threshold for engaging the First Amendment as a legal protection.

Not just Nesselbush, but nationwide media cohorts, academics, and left-wing agitators slammed Governor Mike Pence and the Republican legislature for bigotry against gays and lesbians. In spite of his best efforts to defend both the spirit as well as letter of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Pence caved, as did his conservative cohorts, and they changed the law.  Following corporate as well as media pressure, the state of Arkansas’ GOP trifecta followed suit.

Conservatives across the country, and Americans in general, should be livid that in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, state governments must write laws to enhance and enforce or liberties, then enjoin the federal government to respect those Constitutional liberties. A deeper disappointment, however, depends on the sudden shock, awe, and craven caving of conservatives in those deep red states.

If the Governor of Indiana, a former red-blooded Republican Congressman who claimed “I am a Christian first, a conservative a second, a Republican last” cannot stand his ground on the basic tenet of religious liberty, who will? Aside from Rep Mike Chippendale (R-Foster) and a few others, not many politicians are standing for religious liberty in Rhode Island. In some cases, the aberrant lifestyle and corruption have meet together (Gordon Fox, and perhaps David Cicilline). Even former mayor Vincent “Buddy” Cianci forced Providence firefighters to march in a gay pride parade.

Former Providence Mayor Vincent "Buddy" Cianci forced
Christian firefighters to march in a gay pride parade

 

As for the Indiana and Arkansas legislation, the language outlined clear tests to protect individual liberties from undue government burdens. In no way did these laws permit or enable discrimination based on race or color. The statue would protect individuals of conscience from participating in certain activities, such as baking a cake for a gay wedding.

On a side note, the argument that discrimination includes homosexual conduct is losing steam, and politicians as well as professionals are starting to ask: Are people really born gay? Should homosexuality be a protected class? Martin Luther King, Jr., the Founding Father of America’s Modern Civil Rights Movement, did not think so. He counseled a young charge who struggled with same-sex attraction to seek help. What would Rhode Island’s Founding Father Roger Williams have said about religious freedom and tolerance in connection with homosexuality? One blog site suggested that Williams would have maintained marriage between one man and one woman:

On the one hand, the civil order has no sway in religious matters, of which marriage surely is one. On the other hand, the magistrates are to cast “a blush of civility and morality” over the populace, and homosexuality is surely a moral issue.

In a recent press release Nesselbush not only shamed the state of Indiana for “authorizing their businesses to discriminate”, but welcomed “persecuted homosexuals” and enlightened entrepreneurs to relocate to Rhode Island.

Regarding “discrimination”.  . .

Businesses routinely discriminate when they refuse service to disorderly individuals, or patrons who refuse to wears shoes or a shirt. Some businesses post a sign reading: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” It’s about proprietary rights, pure and simple.

Still, Nesselbush declared:

My heart goes out to all gay and lesbian Hoosiers who may become victims of this law.

“May become?” How about the Hoosiers who have been victimized by uncivil militants, like Memories Pizzeria?

Why spend your money and pay your taxes in a state that has enacted backward laws like this one? Come to Rhode Island, a state that has embraced marriage equality without advancing discrimination in the name of religion. In Rhode Island, we practice religious liberty without trampling on civil rights.

Inclusiveness? In Rhode Island? Tell that to the tens of thousands of professionals, homeowners, businessmen, entrepreneurs, and college students who cannot find a job, who are witnessing the dissolving insolvency of cities and state because of spendthrift Democrats.

Besides, the federal government has enacted RFRA laws, and so has (*gasp*) Rhode Island. Where’s the outrage, Sen. Nesselbush? Has she demanded a revision of Rhode Island’s own RFRA? Furthermore, does she have anything to say about Muslims who refused to bake a gay marriage wedding cake? What about the refusal from gay friendly bakeries to make a cake recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman? How about the imposed censorship against a campus newspaper at Roger Williams University?

This Muslim bakery refused to bake a gay wedding cake

 

Furthermore, how would Williams have reacted to the freedom of conscience of Christian businesses protecting their freedom of conscience, and refusing to engage in certain kinds of business?

The Boston Globe published a review of John Barry’s biography Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul: Church, State, and the Birth of Liberty, which included the following reflection:

Williams wrote, “I commend that man, whether Jew, or Turk, or Papist, or whoever, that steers no otherwise than his conscience dares.” Williams believed, in effect, that even the intolerant must be tolerated, which would become a bedrock principle of liberal democracy.

In other words, Williams respected freedom of conscience, thus siding with the Christians who refuse to bake a wedding cake, take photographs, or provide flowers for a homosexual wedding. Nesselbush distorts the Indiana controversy and RI founder Roger Williams’ legacy of religious liberty and tolerance. Based on her flawed estimation, Williams is just as much an insufferable bigot as the residents of Indiana and all other Americans who regard freedom of religion (and conscience) as sacrosanct. Judging from her own rhetoric, would Nesselbush banish Williams form his own state? Or would she simply refuse to bake him a cake?

A Question in Search of an Answer: Hillary Who?

While Republicans are battling over who will stand for them in Election 2016 and lead the future of the party, Democrats across the country are lining up under one banner:

Ready for Hillary

It’s time for Republicans, Democrats, and all unaffiliated Americans to ask a simple question:

Hillary who?

The obvious answer? The former first lady under President Bill Clinton, adolescent in the White House during the 1990s, who took credit for the mature, adult policy decisions of the Republican Congress from 1995 until his timely departure in 2001.

A deeper response: Chicago native, student of radical communist ideologue Saul Alinksy, who tried to implement a single payer health care system in the early 1990s, who has been running for President for eight years.

Yes, she sought the highest office in the land in 2008, and lost by slim margins in key battleground primary states. The politics of identity defeated the gamut behind gender. Next year, Democrats want to please the feminist impulse in their left flank.

Recent polling from major and minor media puts former First Lady Hillary ahead of all other potential Republican contenders, including Establishmentarian Jeb Bush. So, Clinton is the Democratic Party's best shot at winning, supposedly. She can win, and a lot of people would vote for her. Whether she is worthy voting for brings up another set of questions.

Why would she be a worthy leader? She has a momentum of support in the blogosphere, and the polling props her up for the long-term win. But why would she be a good President? Every citizen in this country deserves an answer to this question, because the United States has suffered for eight years under an immature executive, with no prior experience, who won because of his superior campaigning/community organizing, plus the telegenic burst of support from Big Media and disparate celebrities, including Oprah Winfrey and Hollywood.

What do people see in Hillary Clinton? The man behind her: William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton, and the eight years of strong economic growth and relative international calm.  At least, many Democrats, believe, Hillary can bring up the brand as Bill did.

Or did he?

In a post-election 2014 column, Washington Post columnist George Will reminded his readers that Hillary Clinton is a drag, a bridge to the past instead of a pathway to the future. Let us not forget that under Bill Clinton, Democratic numbers nationally decline. Under Obama, those numbers of have worsened. The Clinton name protects Bill from the prying eyes of a drowsy media, but not his party from the fallout of her unknown character and lack of political skill. As the leader of her party, how would Hillary help the Democratic ticket?

Many of Hillary Clinton's supporters cite her prior record of experience, including her tenure as junior Senator from New York, then Secretary of State under President Obama.

Let us recall that another Democratic President, James Buchanan of Pennsylvania, had one of the most comprehensive governmental resumes in US History: Congressman, US Senator (in the days when legislatures appointed them rather than election by the popular vote), foreign diplomat, and Secretary of State), Buchanan has been tagged one of the worst executives in US History, as well.  A complete creature of Washington mores (if any), the dithering "doughface" executive pandered to Southern slave interested, then did nothing as the country violently divided toward the irrepressible Civil War.

Hiding behind legal restraint and decisive inaction, Buchanan was an ineffective executive. Already the former Secretary of state is hiding behind private emails and erased servers.

Once again, what has Hillary Clinton accomplished to make her a worthy President? What character traits has she displayed to prove her leadership capabilities? Aside from "Three AM" phone call commercial against Barack Obama in 2008, plus her vote for the War in Iraq, what other legislative, policy, or even moral record can she run on?

 Perhaps her past activism as First Lady would reveal her presidential potential.

She stood by her husband, even as repeated reports indicted Bill for numerous affairs, even cases of sexual assault and rape. As a US Senator, she passed little remarkable legislation, and nothing which limited the federal government to enacting basic, enumerated mandates. Again, she voted for the War in Iraq, then tried to hide or run away from this vote.

As for her tenure as Secretary of State: the Middle East is embroiled in terrorist genocide, with ISIS colliding across weakened member states. Ukraine is divided, with Russian aggression having seized Crimea and looking to take the East part of the former Soviet satellite. Then there's the deaths of four diplomats at Benghazi, Libya.

 Following her current departure from public life, she avows that businesses do not create jobs, she claims that she was dirt poor when she left the White House, and she can't operate more than one email account at time. Inarticulate, incoherent, and apparently incompetent, she has presented no clear policy details on a Presidential run, let alone a Presidency.

So, the question which every Democrat, and every American should ask about Hillary Clinton's purported Presidential ambitions:

Hillary Who?

990WBOB's "The State of the Union" with Arthur C. Schaper

1. What is Arthur C. Schaper's “State of the Union”?

 I was interested in radio the momentum a local radio host invited me to call into his show a few times, then invited me as a guest co-host on the program. Our two guest on the show answered everything so quickly, that there was a lot of free time, and the host wasn’t ready with other prep material. I felt at ease and calm speaking on the program, and stepped in to keep the conversation going.

The radio host and the owner suggested that I start my own radio show, which appealed to me, since I have a lot on my mind, and have a lot more to say. I like what I am doing now, and already people throughout the South Bay region of Los Angeles, and now around the country, are listening in.

About the title “State of the Union”. . .

When I was thinking about the title of my radio show, I first wanted to call it “The State of Everything.” I realized that would be too wide a title, almost meaningless. I then settled down to “The State of the Union”, since I wanted to talk about issues at the local, the national, and even the international level. Besides, I felt that my state of the union would be more accurate than whatever the President (Republican or Democrat) shared before Congress every year.

2. What type of guests will State of the Union feature?

I will have on my show political candidates, elected officials, and anyone else who has a question, comment, or rant about the current State of the Union. I hope to give more elected officials in Rhode Island as well as California and everywhere else a chance to share their views.

3. So, you're a California Conservative; why the interest in New England politics?

After the disappointing 2012 national elections, I discovered that Republicans were in a similar discourage, dispirited place like the Democrats after the 2004 election. With his many failures in foreign and domestic policy, I was convinced that Obama would be a one-term President, yet he won reelection (although by a lesser margin, and Democrats gained fewer seats in the US Senate compared to the GOP in 2004).

I then recalled how the 2004-2005 Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean responded to the Democratic doldrums: The Fifty-State Strategy. In 2006, Democrats won seats in more conservative regions like Ohio and Pennsylvania that year. In 2013, US Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) suggested a more libertarian stance on certain issues (I agreed, since  less government is essentially consistent with the GOP platform), to put more states into play. Even Karl Rove started talking about a Fifty State Strategy.  Soon after, I contacted all the deep blue states, especially in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions: Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, and of course, Rhode Island.

Rhode Island was interesting especially because I knew about the Chafees, and the intrigue of a Republican turned Independent becoming Governor was too much to pass up. Liberal Rhode Island had pushed massive pension reforms (supposedly), with the same attorney who had helped out San  Jose, CA. That pension issue has bankrupted four cities in CA, and was a crisis point of discussion.

I love writing, and I began sharing my take on issues in the state, hoping to help flip Rhode Island and make it go red again.  One editor offered me space for a weekly column on his website, and broadened my appeal. I also made lasting connections with RIGOP leadership, then found myself getting involved in disturbing controversies which (should) have national implications: the DePetro boycott, the pension crisis, 38 Studios, the Avedisian-McKay spat, the RI Gubernatorial elections (precursors to the national Democratic divides), the Providence mayoral elections, RhodeMapRI, the rampant corruption and destruction which follows Democratic dominance. There is a lot going on in Rhode Island which more people across the country should know about.

Roger Williams

 

Oh, and I am big fan of Roger Williams!

4. Having been born and raised in liberal-leaning California, what is the origin of your conservative ideology?

My parents were conservative, law-abiding, Bible-reading people. At an early age, when Democrat Bill Clinton was running for President, I realized that integrity and honesty were key components for an elected official. Bush 41 had lied about not raising taxes. Ross Perot was the immediate draw for me. I believe that life begins at conception, and science confirms this. In fact, the conservative world view has a lot of science which confirms it.

In effect , I am a conservative because I am interested in the truth of things, rather than believing whatever makes me feel good. The truth does set you free, and having an accurate awareness of what is true, based on fact, research, statistics, and legacy, all reveal that a limited government based on constitutional rule, which respects individual liberty, i.e. a conservative state, is the best way to govern a country, as well as a state or municipality.

5. In 5 words or less, what is America's your prescription, or best dose of medicine that can fix what ails us?

Elect concerned courageous, consistent, conservative representatives. (Notice that I did not write “Republican”, since party affiliation is not a necessary condition for anything)

6. Which is scarier? A Democrat controlled White House? or Democrat controlled Congress?

Oh brother, like Charybdis and Scylla. I would have to say a Democratic President, since Democratic majorities caved to President Bush and his demand for a troop surge in Iraq, which was the right thing to do. President Obama is a reckless executive, ignoring the rule of law and arbitrarily exercising discretion with abandon, and doing real harm to this country.

Much of the lawlessness were are enduring in this country stems from lawless executives, including the current occupant in the White House. We need better leadership in this country.

7. Anything else you want to tell us?

Just stay tuned, Rhode Islanders!

 

Robert Schuller: Reflection

The Reverend Robert Schuller passed away last week, a fixture in Orange County circles, and a motivational speaker/evangelist well-known around the world.

His theological take on issues concerned pastors and teachers, many of whom believed that he was watering down the Gospel, and promoting man's efforts instead of Jesus' work at the Cross.

In many ways, those critics were right.

Much of the glitz and glamor in the Crystal Cathedral, the meeting place for Robert Schuller and his growing congregation for decades, did not rest on the authority and revelation of the Scriptures, but in psychological pep talks.

In fact, this obituary written about Schuller reveals a stunning and disturbing element: that the name of Jesus is not even mentioned, even in quotes from the now deceased Reverend.

Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton said they were saddened by the passing of a man who offered them "unfailing kindness and wise counsel" during Bill Clinton's presidency.

"From the people who filled the pews of the Crystal Cathedral to the millions who embraced his ministry on television and through his books, Robert Schuller was a beacon of faith, hope, and love," the Clintons said in a joint statement.

To me, that statement spells out the problem with Schuller's ministry. Not just that he was friends with the Clintons (themselves of dubious moral character), but that they viewed Schuller as the "the beacon of faith, hope, and love".

Jesus did the Great Thing for us -- that's what we needed to know about

The beacon, that Savior, is Jesus Christ, not a pastor.

Once a ubiquitous presence on Sunday morning television, Schuller faded from view in recent years after watching his church collapse amid a disastrous leadership transition and sharp declines in viewership and donations that forced the ministry to file for bankruptcy.

What happened to the Crystal Cathedral, and what is happening to churches all over the country, that they are closing their doors in record numbers? Their light is getting put out, because they do not honor Jesus Christ, or rather Christ Jesus, who today is gloriously seated at the right hand of God the Father.

Jesus prophesied about this collapse of churches in Revelation:

"Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent." (Revelation 2: 5)

The soaring, glass-paned Crystal Cathedral — the touchstone of Schuller's career — was sold to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange in 2011. Schuller lost a legal battle the following year to collect more than $5 million from his former ministry over claims of copyright infringement and breach of contract.

The love of money came to define Schuller's ministry instead of the love of the Father. How very disappointing. Yet based on the theme of what he preached, can anyone be surprised at the slow yet visible demise of his business?

Schuller's message — that "possibility thinking" and love of God overcome hardships — was a uniquely American blend of Bible and psychology. It was inspired by late author Norman Vincent Peale, who wrote "The Power of Positive Thinking." Schuller also wrote more than 30 books, including several best-sellers.

What we need is not positive thinking, but a positive revelation of the perfect sacrifice which Jesus fulfilled at the Cross. Once again, where is the discussion, the revelation, the preaching about all that Jesus has done, is doing, and what He will be forever more?

Unlike other televangelists, Schuller's message lacked fire-and-brimstone condemnations or conservative political baggage.

In too many churches, men and women have abandoned the one crucial politic: Christ the King, and His reign is a blessing to all of us, as He invites us into His life to reign with Him (Romans 5: 17).

"The classical error of historical Christianity is that we have never started with the value of the person," he wrote in his book "Self-Esteem: The New Reformation. "Rather, we have started from the 'unworthiness of the sinner,' and that starting point has set the stage for the glorification of human shame in Christian theology."

In a way, Schuller was right. We do need to stop focusing on the shame of sin and the human being. Why? Because of Jesus, the Perfect Man at the Father's right hand, who has paid for all our sins, taken us from dead in our trespasses to alive and seated in heavenly places with Him (Ephesians 2: 4-6). The solution is not more self-esteem, i.e the Way of Cain, but rather more esteem for Jesus and all that He has done, the paths of righteousness, for He esteemed us far more than we could ever esteem ourselves.

Fundamentalists attacked him for statements they believed denied the need for personal repentance of sin.

That is true. Man needs to repent, and believe the Gospel. Where was the preaching about the justification by faith? That is what the Gospel is all about.

Crystal Cathedral (Garden Grove, CA)

Obituaries about Schuller dwelled on the public fight over leadership in the Hour of Power ministry, in which the Robert A Schuller was granted brief power, but then removed from the ministry. What was the source of this feud? Perhaps the younger Schuller wanted to bring in more attention to Jesus, rather than man. The disorderly bitterness between the two shows a lack of unity in Christ, that is certain, and very sad. This fight served as the precursor to the growing financial decline of the ministry, too. What caused the ministry to fold? I submit that the self-help, think-away-the-pain "gospel" turned off a lot of people who found that all their efforts and self-righteous acts did very little to stem the economic fallout. After two decades of trusting trusted in its own efforts rather than relying on the grace of God, the global turmoil of trusting one's riches and self-righteousness pre-eminence fell through, and all the good thoughts about oneself could not cover that up.

This indictment was the most damaging of all:

Bankruptcy filings indicated the ministry was paying significant tax-exempt housing allowances to Schuller family members and insiders. The allowances were legal, but they raised concerns among church creditors who had gone unpaid for months.

What?! Is it any surprise that many Christians do not tithe to any ministry at all? The antidote to this skepticism, returns back to the Word:


"And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth." (Hebrews 7: 8)

Our tithes testify that Jesus lives! So what if any one ministry takes or defrauds? We are not tithing directly and finally to one ministry, but to Jesus, our High Priest Forever!



Robert Schuller, in later years (Wikiportret)

Final Reflection

American Church-ianity has focused too much on man and his accomplishments, rather than Jesus and His Finished Work. The self-help self-reliance, Americana cult has crept into churches around the country, and to this day I rarely find a church where men preach about Jesus, a living Savior who lives and reigns in us.

Now, formerly mainstream churches are embracing false, disordered doctrines like homosexual marriage, abortion, and even "fair trade" economics, all of which reject sound scientific and economic principles. Taking lessons from Robert Schuller, himself a failure resulting from his drift from the Revelation of Christ and Him Crucified in the Word, pastors are investing in pyrotechnics and glamor, good music and nice food after the service, rather than the Living Word and Bread of Life who feeds a hungry world.

What can we learn from Pastor Schuller, then, which can help the Body of Christ stand strong and triumphant in a dark, sighing, crying, dying world?

We need to see more of Jesus, not more of ourselves. We do not need steps to living, but rather Life, who has stepped into our existence to bring us to Life, to Himself.

Today, the traditions of political conservatism, where "God and country" has replaced "God, then country". Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, yes indeed, yet many Christians have confused the building where they conduct Sunday worship with the Head, the Source. The Church is not a building, but a person, and we are all members of His Body. We do not create or manifest Him.

Rather, He made us, died for us, redeemed us, and lives in us forevermore.

If there is any lesson why draw from the life, failings, and death of Robert Schuller, we must remember our First Love, Jesus, and do the first works: Believe on Him, and love one another!

The Fight for Freedom of Conscience in Indiana

Indiana Governor Mike Pence is caving to massive public pressure, as well as corporate influence. The law which has erupted in near lawless upset, SB 101 or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, has been tarred as legislation which justifies invidious discrimination, particularly against gays and lesbians. Putting aside some of the premises of these statements (such as homosexuality as identity as opposed to behavior, per US Senator Rand Paul).

Governor Mike Pence at CPAC (Gage Skidmore)

What does the law actually say? Here is the digest of the legislation:

Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying the law. Prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer.

 

Republican Presidential hopefuls have been outspoken in their support for Gov. Pence, however, including the popularly reviled yet Establishment-backed Jeb Bush:


"I think Gov. Pence has done the right thing," Jeb Bush said Monday during a radio interview with conservative host Hugh Hewitt.

US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)

US Senator Ted Cruz tweeted his support for the Indiana Governor:

Ted Cruz        ✔ @tedcruz Follow

I’m proud to stand with Gov. @mike_pence for religious liberty, and I urge Americans to do the same http://www.tedcruz.org/news/cruz-im-proud-to-stand-with-gov-mike-pence-and-i-urge-americans-to-do-the-same/ …

6:03 PM - 30 Mar 2015

US Senator Marco Rubio looked more closely at what a conscientious dissenter struggles with:

"Nobody is saying that it should be legal to deny someone service at a restaurant or at a hotel because of their sexual orientation. I think that's a consensus view in America" Rubio said. "The flip side is … should a photographer be punished for refusing to do a wedding that their faith teaches them is not one that is valid in the eyes of God?"

Governor Scott Walker balanced his views and walked a fine line:

"In our state there's a balance between wanting to make sure that there's not discrimination [and] at the same time respecting religious freedoms. ... We do that in different ways than what they've done in Indiana. 

"Certainly that's going to be part of the debate here and across the country."

Yet Governor Pence is caving on his own legislation. He announced in a rushed press conference:

"It would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone," Pence said in a press conference in Indianapolis on Tuesday.

Then he admitted:

"Was I expecting this kind of backlash? Heavens no.

And therein lies the problem. Conservatives, pro-family advocates, freedom fighters and limited government contenders are not taking into account the full scope of this fight. Crowd shaming and media pressure can work up a person's autonomic, anatomical systems. That's a fact no one can run from.

Yet small business owners who oppose homosexuality, who support life and discourage abortion, are by definition discriminating. How does anyone stand for their values without also excluding ideas or rejecting concepts in contradiction to those values? Discrimination in itself is not a bad thing. Employers have to discrimination among applicants in order to get the best candidate for the position. Teachers discriminate among right and wrong answers to educate their students.

The need to define right and wrong, the consequences of those choices, and the dynamics of life and death, cannot be rubbed away because of a painfully self-serving need not to offend anyone.

As Washington Post Columnist George Will once quipped: Offense is turning into an entitlement in this country, and this entitlement of offense is hurting our liberties, frustrating our youth and their education, and even upending the free market order of things.

Now, why is Governor Pence starting to cave on the RFRA? Uncharacteristically, The New York Times offers a clear and convincing reason why:

In Indiana, Gov. Mike Pence was in a difficult spot trying to satisfy both the business interests that have threatened to punish the state for its law as well as the conservatives who fought for the measure and do not want to see it diluted.

Corporate America is pushing back, and pushing conservative to the wall once again. This Chamber of Commerce v. Tea Party tug-of-war has defined the war within the GOP for the past six years, yet C of C interests ignore that GOP gains in the House and the US Senate flew in on the upset victories of populist masses intent on a restoration of Constitutional rule.

The Big Businesses interests in Washington have begun tilting toward the Democratic Party, especially in California, where Big Oil supported some losing Democratic incumbents.

International Business Daily predicts that Indiana could lose nearly $300 million in revenue if businesses continue boycotting the state because of this law. Should Indiana cave to corporate pressure? Four years prior, Chick-Fil-a faced a widespread backlash because the CEO of the Company declared that marriage cannot be defined except for one man and one woman. In spite of the pro-homosexual militant protests, Chick-Fil-A supporters frequented the restaurants in drove, and their profits increased.

Why can't the Governor of Indiana muster the same courage?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politics/pence-will-fix-religious-freedom-legislation/

Breitbart News reminds the public that the fight will not stop with same-sex marriage, nor will it cease with forcing businesses to cater to homosexual couples, even if the conduct violates the rules and conscience of the owners.

Gay activists and their leftist allies told us decades ago that same-sex marriage wasn’t on the agenda. All homosexuals wanted was the benefits of marriage, but not the title. That, of course, was a lie.

The agenda has proceeded from civil unions to recognized marriages, and now churches will fall under attack, losing their tax exemption status. Public schools are also enduring heavy assault, and major corporate interests have not only cowered and caved, but expect entire governments to get along to go along (like Indiana and even Arkansas, the home of world's largest retailer Wal-Mart). Private parochial schools will face forced adaptation or closure. Homeschooling parents may be forced to teach about homosexuality, whether this requirement violates their religious tenets or not.

Yet what remains prevalently missing in this discussion? The notion that homosexual conduct is an identity, rather than behavior; that gays and lesbians should be treated as a protected class, when the research, stats, and historical accounts do not justify this treatment.

Martin Luther King, Jr,:
Homosexuality is a problem
with a solution

Even Civil Rights leaders Martin Luther King Jr. called homosexuality a problem in a search of a solution:

Where is this courage on display today? If even conservative governors won't stand their ground for what is right and true, then individuals of conscience must insist on doing so.

Ensuring Religious Freedom Everywhere: Indiana

Former conservative Republican Congressman, Presidential candidate, and current Indiana Governor commands a great deal of respect with me.



He signed into law legislation which would raise the standard for filing lawsuits against small businesses, and create clear parameters for legal tests on whether there is an undue burden if a business chooses not to provide a certain service to someone.

His editorial in the Wall Street Journal provided some unique reading:

Ensuring Religious Freedom in Indiana

Our new law has been grossly misconstrued as a ‘license to discriminate.’ That isn’t true, and here’s why.

By

Mike Pence,          

Updated March 31, 2015 10:28 a.m. ET

 

 

Last week I signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, known as RFRA, which ensures that Indiana law will respect religious freedom and apply the highest level of scrutiny to any state or local governmental action that infringes on people’s religious liberty. Unfortunately, the law has stirred a controversy and in recent days has been grossly misconstrued as a “license to discriminate.”
I want to make clear to Hoosiers and every American that despite what critics and many in the national media have asserted, the law is not a “license to discriminate,” either in Indiana or elsewhere. In fact, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act reflects federal law, as well as law in 30 states nationwide. Indiana’s legislation is about affording citizens full protection under Indiana law.

Affording citizens full protection under law: what a novel concept, right? Religious liberty matters, one of the five essential freedoms articulated in the First Amendment.

I abhor discrimination. I believe in the Golden Rule that you should “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I wouldn’t eat there anymore. As governor of Indiana, if I were presented a bill that legalized discrimination against any person or group, I would veto it. Indiana’s new law contains no reference to sexual orientation. It simply mirrors federal law that President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.

Discrimination gets a mixed reading in our times. We have to discriminate between right and wrong, don't we? Discrimination is more than an arbitrary distinction based on skin color. Art critics discriminate between good art and bad art, based on clearly defined standards.

As Prof. Daniel O. Conkle of Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law, a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage, wrote last week in the Indianapolis Star: “The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a ‘license to discriminate,’ and it should not be mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis.”

Indiana State Flag

This argument is one of Gov. Pence's strongest points his column. Contrary to the misinformed belief of many on the left, there are many gay activists who discourage or resist the militant homosexual lobby, which personalizes, polarizes, then demonizes anyone who stands in the way of the "Gay Agenda".

People have asked why this is necessary. After all, the U.S. Constitution and the Indiana Constitution provide strong recognition of freedom of religion. But RFRA is in many ways overdue in Indiana.

In 1990 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith that the First Amendment’s free exercise clause could not be raised as a defense to generally applicable laws, even if the law infringed on a person’s religious liberty. In response, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. This law limits federal government action that would infringe upon religion to only those acts that did not substantially burden free exercise of religion, absent a compelling governmental interest and in the least restrictive means.

Wow. Bill Clinton sided with religious freedom advocates. At least there were some silver linings to his muddled Presidency.

For example, a public school in Texas in 2008 told a Native American kindergartner that he would have to cut his hair because of the school’s grooming policies. But keeping his hair long was part of his religious practice, which allowed his parents to prevail in federal court under RFRA.

Many states have enacted RFRAs of their own; 19 states have passed such laws and 11 state courts have interpreted the law to provide a heightened standard for reviewing government action. When President Obama was a state senator in Illinois, he supported Illinois’s version of the law in 1998. Historically, this law has received wide bipartisan support.

Ouch. Even Barack Obama approved of allowing individuals to stand for their religious liberties, and exempt themselves from participating in certain activities. The double-standard of the Left knows no bounds.

But Indiana never passed such a law. Then in 2010 came the Affordable Care Act, which renewed concerns about government infringement on deeply held religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby and the University of Notre Dame both filed lawsuits challenging provisions that required the institutions to offer certain types of insurance coverage in violation of their religious views.

Obamacare is an easy target to skewer. The Catholic Church wanted a government-mandated healthcare program, and got the Affordable Care Act, which was neither affordable nor caring. The gargantuan take-over of the health care industry intruded into the full faith and practice of different religious dominations, including the Catholic Church, but also the convictions of private business owners, who refused to subsidize or provide health insurance for abortions. The Burwell decision protect private corporations like Hobby Lobby from having to provide health insurance which included funding for abortion.

Yet today, private business owners are facing lawsuits, lost business, and foreclosure by refusing to provide services to homosexual couples. Whatever happened to propriety rights? Many businesses post a sign which reads "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Individual business owners have the right to miss out on business, if they so choose. The state has no business mandating who has to welcome whomever.

Last year the Supreme Court upheld religious liberty in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, based on the federal RFRA. With the Supreme Court’s ruling, the need for a RFRA at the state level became more important, as the federal law does not apply to states. To ensure that religious liberty is fully protected under Indiana law, this year the General Assembly enshrined these principles in Indiana law. I fully supported that action.

Some express concern that Indiana’s RFRA law would lead to discrimination, but RFRA only provides a mechanism to address claims, not a license for private parties to deny services. Even a claim involving private individuals under RFRA must show that one’s religious beliefs were “substantially burdened” and not in service to a broader government interest—which preventing discrimination certainly is. The government has the explicit power under the law to step in and defend such interests.

Thomas Jefferson noted, “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of civil authority.” I regret that false narratives and misrepresentations of the RFRA have taken hold.

Freedom of conscience is losing attention and salience in our times. Why do we find that more people cannot stand by their convictions? They are afraid of being convicted of a crime, certainly, but the push toward invading people's private thoughts and punishing them for believing that same-sex marriage is wrong should send huge warning signals to all freedom lovers.

The hospitality and character of Hoosiers are synonymous with everything that is good about America. Faith and religion are important values to millions of Indiana residents. With the passage of this legislation, Indiana will continue to be a place that respects the beliefs of every person in our state.

Faith and religion are not just important to Indiana residents, but to many Americans. Americans today need to reject the argument that the faith or conscience of an individual has no place in the public square. Individual businesses, based on conscience, science, and vetted tradition have the right and authority to resist any encroachment against that right.

The Indiana RFRA is not just about ensuring religious freedom in the Hoosier State, but freedom everywhere.

 

"Right On Daily" was Right on the Social Issues

Aaron Park, the Vice President of the California Republican Assembly, slammed the CA GOP ground game soundly in a blog post following the too many to count near misses in California following the 2014 GOP Shellacknado.

Aaron F. Park (aka "The RINO")

Why did the 2014 Wave Miss California? Hint, it WAS those Damn Social Issues (Again)

Click on the link above to get the whole scoop. I will add a few points here.

I submit that there are no mere social issues, but all political matters are moral issues.

The breakdown of the family is a costly matter for the state, because of the increased demands placed on public assistance and government social work. No matter how loving and caring a bureaucrat may be, nothing can replace the loving attention of two parents, or one diligent parent in the home.

Gun control is an economic policy, and a failed on. Removing the right of self-preservation from homeowners, and watch property and moral crimes skyrocket. Nothing is more costly to a community than crime.

Life matters, and it is a biological fact, not just a religious sentiment. Abortion is

Congressman Cory Gardner of Colorado did not run away from his pro-life views, even though the Centennial State was a purple state going light blue. The Denver Post endorsed Gardner, in spite of his pro-life views. Exit polls showed that voters considered themselves pro-choice two-to-one, yet the voted for Pro-Life Cory.

All over the country, men and women were looking for leaders who stood their ground on moral issues. In California, a clear distinction between left and right would have made the difference, yet many candidates pandered to the center, or alienated voters on the right. The worst example of this, former San Diego Councilman and Congressional candidate Carl DeMaio. Not that I want to invest in the circular firing squad, but when a Republican candidate is so offensive, that conservatives actively endorse the incumbent Democrat, party leaders need to face the fact: Carl sucked.

Here are some other comments from Park's post worth perusing:

I spoke to a Republican Consultant with connections all over the Country who told me that the big money was staying out of California or was withdrawing from California. This conversation was in Mid-September. The money people made a conscious decision to withdraw from California.

Ouch! Tough love hurts, but there it is. I have spoken with top CA GOP brass, too, and they have told me the same thing. National Republicans gave up on California after 2000, with George W. Bush's first run for President. He did better in 2004, losing the Golden State by fewer points, but why invest millions into expensive advertising in a state where a Republican Presidential contender doesn't have a snowpack's chance in the Sierra Nevada?

In addition – many of these moderate candidates for various reasons were not able to unify their base. Doug Ose, Jeff Gorrell and Carl DiMaio received millions in support. They all lost – Ose by the slimmest of margins.

Yes, Yes, Yes! There were a few Republicans in California who made it a priority to unify the Center and the Right in their respective districts, and they won: Assemblymembers Catharine Baker and David Hadley.

Assemblyman David Hadley (R-Torrance)

Catharine of the East Bay area was socially more liberally, but she did not advertise it. Chinese-American voters loved Catharine because she cared about education. Local media and limited government reforms, and some Democrats (like Orinda Mayor Steve Glazer) applauded her opposition to public sector unions. Baker was a uniter, not a divider, and all on substantive policies.

As for David Hadley, every time he discussed his campaign, and later his victory, he first informed/reminded his audience: "I united the center-right". This issue of unity is crucial. Why other Republican candidates have failed to take this important principle to heart is disconcerting, to say the least. Neel Kashkari practically poked social "conservatives" in the eye when he marched in gay pride parades, then championed Governor Brown for not appealing the overturn of Prop 8. A majority of Californians in an Obama year voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman. How could Kashkari run from that?

However, four Conservatives running in races that were not regarded as top-tier did almost as well as the leading moderates did (all out performed DiMaio) with little or no funding! These would be Chris Mitchum, Dan Logue, Tony Amador and Paul Chabot. All four were unabashed social conservatives and all performed as well as other socially liberal candidates who were fully funded.

Johnny Tacherra

These are great points. Chris Mitchum should have defeated Lois Capps. She is a fossil of the House who has done very little. Her latest remarks about gun control make her sound incoherent or incompetent. Chris ran as a true conservative, and with a little more funding would have made it over the edge. This post forgot to mention Johnny Tacherra of Fresno, whom Breitbart had identified as a credible threat against Jim Costa. The Dairy Farmer may be able to unseat Costa in 2016 if the right candidate dominates the GOP ticket.

For more information, visit VP Park's blog post here.