Thursday, February 27, 2014

A Good Perspective on Arizona from Massachusetts

http://michaelgraham.com/in-which-i-rise-in-defense-of-arizonas-new-anti-gay-law/ 

Michael Graham, from Massachusetts, expresses many of the same sentiments I have regarding Arizona's "Restore Religious Freedom" act, aka, SB1062 which Governor Brewer vetoed last night.  What I object to is the labeling of this bill as an "anti-gay law," which it is not.  Mr. Graham states the same thing.  Most "news" agencies referred to SB1062 as "Arizona's anti-gay law."

Now, was SB1062 "anti-homosexual" at all?  Read the full text of the ACTUAL BILL and decide:

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1.  Section 41-1493, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
41-1493.  DefinitionsIn this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
1.  "Demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
2.  "Exercise of religion" means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
3.  "Government" includes this state and any agency or political subdivision of this state.
4.  "Nonreligious assembly or institution" includes all membership organizations, theaters, cultural centers, dance halls, fraternal orders, amphitheaters and places of public assembly regardless of size that a government or political subdivision allows to meet in a zoning district by code or ordinance or by practice.
5.  "Person" includes a religious assembly or institution ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY OR INSTITUTION OR OTHER BUSINESS ORGANIZATION.
6.  "Political subdivision" includes any county, city, including a charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special district, any board, commission or agency of a county, city, including a charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special district or any other local public agency.
7.  "Religion‑neutral zoning standards":
(a)  Means numerically definable standards such as maximum occupancy codes, height restrictions, setbacks, fire codes, parking space requirements, sewer capacity limitations and traffic congestion limitations.
(b)  Does not include:
(i)  Synergy with uses that a government holds as more desirable.
(ii)  The ability to raise tax revenues.
8.  "Suitable alternate property" means a financially feasible property considering the person's revenue sources and other financial obligations with respect to the person's exercise of religion and with relation to spending that is in the same zoning district or in a contiguous area that the person finds acceptable for conducting the person's religious mission and that is large enough to fully accommodate the current and projected seating capacity requirements of the person in a manner that the person deems suitable for the person's religious mission.
9.  "Unreasonable burden" means that a person is prevented from using the person's property in a manner that the person finds satisfactory to fulfill the person's religious mission.
Sec. 2.  Section 41-1493.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
41-1493.01.  Free exercise of religion protected; definitionA.  Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.
B.  Except as provided in subsection C, government OF THIS SECTION, STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
C.  Government STATE ACTION may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSON SEEKING THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE ACTION demonstrates that application of the burden to the person PERSON'S EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE is both:
1.  In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
2.  The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
D.  A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING.E.  A PERSON THAT ASSERTS A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION MUST ESTABLISH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:1.  THAT THE PERSON'S ACTION OR REFUSAL TO ACT IS MOTIVATED BY A RELIGIOUS BELIEF.2.  THAT THE PERSON'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS SINCERELY HELD.3.  THAT THE STATE ACTION SUBSTANTIALLY BURDENS THE EXERCISE OF THE PERSON'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.F.  THE PERSON ASSERTING A CLAIM OR DEFENSE UNDER SUBSECTION D OF THIS SECTION MAY OBTAIN INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF.  A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.
E.  G.  In FOR THE PURPOSES OF this section, the term substantially burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.
H.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "STATE ACTION" MEANS ANY ACTION, EXCEPT FOR THE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY SECTION 41-1493.04, BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.htm&Session_ID=112
There is absolutely nothing in the bill about being anti-homosexual - or anti-anything!  In fact, ultimately, this bill could have been used to protect the rights/liberties of homosexuals and other minorities.  Why is a bill which is pro-religious freedom (a Constitutional right) automatically an anti-homosexual bill?

What if a guy wearing a white hooded robe walks in to a print shop owned by an African-American and requests fliers for an upcoming KKK meeting be printed - does that business owner have the right to refuse to serve the KKK?  Alright, that's an extreme example - but the rights and freedoms are identical to the rights and freedoms SB1062 was intended to protect.  So what's the difference?  If this same business owner happens to be very Christian and opposes homosexuality for religious reasons, could he be forced to print "wedding" announcements for a homosexual couple?  Why?  That's pretty much what happened in New Mexico to a photographer who refused to photograph the civil union ceremony of a homosexual couple.  The couple turned around and sued the photographer - and won!  How absurd!

All that being said, below is the transcript of Governor Brewer's announcement:
I am here to announce my decision on Senate Bill 1062.
As with every proposal that reaches my desk, I gave Senate Bill 1062 careful evaluation and deliberate consideration. I call them like I see them, despite the cheers or boos from the crowd.
I took the time necessary to make the RIGHT decision. I met or spoke with my attorneys, lawmakers and citizens supporting and opposing this legislation.
I listened . . . and asked questions.
As Governor, I have protected religious freedoms when there is a specific and present concern that exists in OUR state.
And I have the record to prove it.
My agenda is to sign into law legislation that advances Arizona.
When I addressed the Legislature earlier this year, I made my priorities for this session abundantly clear…
Among them are passing a responsible budget that continues Arizona’s economic Comeback.
From CEOs -- to entrepreneurs -- to business surveys -- Arizona ranks as one the best states
to grow or start a business.
Additionally, our IMMEDIATE challenge is fixing a broken Child Protection system.
Instead, this is the first policy bill to cross my desk.
Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific and present concern related to religious liberty in
Arizona. I have not heard of one example in Arizona where a business owner’s religious liberty
has been violated.
The bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences.
After weighing all of the arguments, I vetoed Senate Bill 1062 moments ago.
To the supporters of the legislation, I want you to know that I understand that long-held norms
about marriage and family are being challenged as never before.
Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes. However, I sincerely believe that Senate
Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve.
It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want.
Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value, so is non-discrimination.
Going forward, let’s turn the ugliness of the debate over Senate Bill 1062 into a renewed
search for greater respect and understanding among ALL Arizonans and Americans.
Thank you.
http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/GS_022614_SB1062Remarks.pdf
I have to agree with Governor Brewer's analysis and decision.  Thank you, Governor Brewer.

Governor Brewer Vetoes SB1062


Thank you, Governor Brewer!  The SB1062 legislation was not well written being too broadly expressed, which you nailed exactly when you announced the veto of the bill.  While I do support religious freedom, this bill was the wrong thing at the wrong time - and - the way it was written could have led to serious discrimination issues.  It took some courage to veto a bill put forward by fellow Republicans, but really - all it took was common sense, and you showed that.  Thank you again.

Scott Windsor

Monday, February 24, 2014

Arizona SB1062

This bill has been labeled across the country as an anti-homosexual bill, when in fact - it is not.  The intention of SB1062 was to promote the rights of business and church groups to not be forced to perform service(s) which may be in conflict with their own moral beliefs - religious or otherwise.  The fact is, it is an unnecessary bill.  Businesses already have the right to refuse service to anyone - it's their prerogative to do so.  If they turn away business - it's their bottom line which is at stake.  Those who oppose such a stance are free to take their business elsewhere.  

Since this new bill really doesn't DO anything, it's silly legislation which is only allowing the state to be opened to unnecessary attacks from some with an agenda to oppose anyone exercising personal freedoms.  It can only bring upon calls for sanctions or boycotts - and really, again, the intent of the bill was not to put down any particular group, but to recognize the rights of other groups.  

I still find it ironic that roughly 3.5% of the population gets so much attention!  When greater than 96% do not share in the homosexual lifestyle, why do we spend so much time debating the topic?  (See stats sited on the CathApol Blog).  Certainly, in this country, individuals who wish to pursue a lifestyle which is morally contrary to others have the right to do so - so long as their pursuit of such a right does not trample upon the rights of those who do not share their moral (or amoral) view.  In short, homosexuals do not have the right to force their morality upon those who "rightfully" oppose them.  

Still, I repeat, SB 1062 really doesn't do anything that individuals do not already have the right to do, or not do!  For THIS reason, I would recommend that Governor Brewer does NOT sign this bill into law.  She has until the end of the week to decide.

Please feel free to share your thoughts and/or share this article!  To share to Facebook, click here.

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

OReilly Obama Interview 2014

Bill O'Reilly pulls no punches in this head-to-head interview with President Obama.  He hits many of the major points which are controversial topics which have plagued the Obama administration.


Dr. Michael Savage has his own list of questions for President Obama.  I'll present his questions and see if I can guess Obama's answers...

Here are Savage’s questions for Obama and then my "What Obama Might Say" (WOMS) answers:
1. Why did you insist on pushing into the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department a lawyer who defended the assassin of a police officer? A lawyer who has such a hatred for the police and law enforcement that he called them “an occupying fascist presence”?
WOMS:  I thank you, Dr. Savage, for this question.  The fact is that in this country every person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Even those charged with the most heinous crimes are entitled to as one of THEIR rights to have an attorney.  We must not blame Debo P. Adegbile for her role in defending Abu-Jamal.
2. Why did you refuse to send military help to the people trapped in Benghazi?
WOMS:  (Keep in mind, O'Reilly did ask about whether or not the Benghazi attack was called a "terrorist attack" when the president was first informed of it).  The only remotely timely military response would have been an air assault, and without knowing exactly where the Americans were, there was simply not enough to go on to authorize such an attack.
3. Why did you attack Israel and have John Kerry threaten the Jewish people with another intifada and boycotts unless they gave away half their nation?
WOMS: I did not "attack" Israel and there is no demand or even request for Israel to "give away half their nation."
4. Why have you fired so many combat generals on such slim charges at a time when China is on the march and the Islamo-fascists are stronger than ever?
WOMS: Dr. Savage, without specific charges and examples of said "firings" I cannot answer.  China is not "on the march" and we're getting along quite well with Islam in the United States.
5. Why have you dismissed almost the entire nuclear command on trumped-up charges?
WOMS:  They were making me look bad.
6. Why do you keep expanding the welfare state when the economy is so weak? Such as expanding unemployment payments? Not reining in the 12 million, and growing, army of Americans cashing in on disability payments? Failing to stop the unchecked growth of the number of people on food stamps? Virtually eliminating the work requirements for receiving welfare benefits?
WOMS:  I have to keep my supply of voters/supporters!
7. Why do you keep pushing for amnesty for 30 million or more Mexicans and other illegal aliens when they are here illegally? And we cannot afford them? When they won’t learn English? Or learn our history? When they wave Mexican flags at sporting events and speak of the “gringo” with such contempt?
WOMS:  I have to keep my supply of voters/supporters!
8. Why won’t you stop the IRS from targeting conservative groups? Harassing them with audits and blocking their non-profit status? Why did you let Eric Holder choose a lawyer who had contributed thousands of dollars to your campaign to head the Justice Department IRS investigation when a special prosecutor is needed?
WOMS:  Dr. Savage, that was three questions!  Need I remind you of my previous two answers?  Those conservative groups were getting in the way.
9. Why won’t you stop the NSA from spying on innocent Americans?
WOMS:  Equal treatment under the law...  and of course, some are more equal than others.
10. Why don’t you prosecute gangsters on Wall Street and those corrupt senators and congressmen who are stealing billions through front groups and relatives? Through manipulating markets? On contracts?
WOMS:  Those are some pretty serious, but also non-specific charges.
11. Why don’t you approve the Keystone pipeline which will bring much-needed oil from Canada to refineries in America, for Americans? Instead of forcing the Canadians to ship this precious black gold to China?
WOMS:  Because that is what the Republicans want, and I can't be seen or perceived as bowing to their wishes.
12. Why don’t you encourage the expansion of charter schools so that underprivileged minority students have a chance at a real education? So they’re not trapped in a school system that dooms them to never realize their dreams? When 90 percent of African-Americans voted for you?
WOMS:  When those people are "trapped," as you call it - they are also dependent upon the government for their existence.  Again, I need to keep my supply of voters/supporters growing.
13. Why do you make policy and change laws by presidential executive order when the Constitution grants those powers only to Congress?
WOMS:  I believe Senator Jeff Sessions said it well... “I think the American people are coming to recognize that the President sees the Constitution as an inconvenience…a handicap to achieving the agenda that he has.”
14. Why won’t you speak out against the Islamist radicals who massacre Christians throughout the Middle East and North Africa?
WOMS:  They are not potential voters/supporters.

Monday, February 3, 2014

Coca Cola 2014 Super Bowl Melting Pot Commerical

Many "Conservative" pundits are getting all up in arms about the Coca-Cola commercial with "America the Beautiful" playing in several languages and showing people of many races and cultures in the video.  Come on folks!  Have you ever heard the term "melting pot" in reference to the United States of America?!  The video expresses who we ARE.  It is not a ploy to promote multiple languages or an attack on the English language (and keep in mind, "English" is not "American" - it's BRITISH!).  Very few, if any, can say that they are not descendant from immigrants (even "Native Americans" likely immigrated over 1000 years ago, perhaps across a "land-bridge" connecting Alaska and Russia).

Tonight, I heard Michael Savage bloviating over this commercial too - and even stated "What would the Chinese say if someone played their national anthem in all those different languages?"  Umm, Dr. Savage, with all due respect, "America the Beautiful" is NOT our national anthem!  (sigh)  Again, America IS beautiful largely due to our diversity in cultures.  I would also remind Dr. Savage, et. al., that we don't live in China - and part of what makes the United States a great country is the freedom of speech to express ourselves...  let's not push for removal of Coca-Cola's inalienable right to this.

I think I'll go get me a Coke...


#CocaCola #SuperBowlCommercial #AmericaIsBeautiful

Sunday, February 2, 2014

Which Group Is More Terrorist?

Which Race Is Most Likely To Be A Terrorist? The Answer Will Shock You…Posted November 3, 2013 at 7:00 pm
Zionist mega donor Sheldon Adelson once said, "Not all Islamists [Muslims] are terrorists, but all terrorists are Islamists [Muslim]." Not only are 94% of all terrorist attacks on US soil committed by non-Muslims, but Jews like Sheldon Adelson, are actually responsible for more terrorist attacks than Muslims. That's right, according to the FBI, Jews were responsible for 7% of terrorist attacks on American soil while Muslims were only responsible for 6%. In addition, these official statistics are negatively biased against Muslims. For example, while Muslims were unilaterally blamed for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, the only ones arrested on that day were Israeli Mossad agents. These Jewish agents were caught filming the attacks on the twin towers and celebrating afterwards. The agents were apprehended in a van that had explosive residue, and later failed lie detector tests about their role in the attacks...
http://thebilzerianreport.com/which-race-is-most-likely-to-be-a-terrorist-the-results-will-shock-you/

Well, while those facts may be accurate from a semi-biased view, I have taken the liberty of going to the same source and putting together which group (not really "race") have done the most terror - that is how many have they injured and how many have they killed.

Clearly, the above posting was from someone with an anti-Jewish bias, but a more objective view of the SAME STATS does not reveal such a favorable anti-Jewish position.  The stats will NOT surprise you, especially if we include the 9/11 attacks.  It would appear that the above posting based its "facts" purely on individual accounts, but if we consider how much terror was actually done, that is, how many people were actually injured or killed, Jews barely show up in the charts - but which groups do?  Left-wing extremists and Muslim extremists.  The charts below refer to "extremists" and not their group or race as a whole.





And the spreadsheet data compiled from the FBI website is: