Matt Walsh: Abortion and The Gays Right to Cake

Matt Walsh is at it again: speaking truth to propaganda.  His post today is entitled: It’s legal to kill babies, but let’s worry about a gay person’s right to cake.

You can read the whole post by clicking on the above hyperlink, and here is a little taste:

Progressivism is indeed a self-inflicted mental disorder, and last week provided us with a stunning illustration of this fact...

First Indiana passed a religious freedom bill giving business owners the right to refuse to do things that might go against their religious beliefs. For instance, as has happened a few times now, a bakery might decide it doesn’t want to bake a cake for a gay wedding...

Well, the idea of gays possibly being deprived of cake and other commodities sent our society into a tizzy. They yelled and screamed and organized boycotts, insisting that allowing businesses to potentially refuse service, in some circumstances, constitutes a dehumanization of gay people...

Meanwhile, in Colorado, Dynal Lane stabbed Michelle Wilkins in the uterus, cut her open, and ripped out her unborn daughter. Wilkins almost bled to death, and her young daughter died...

The Colorado DA announced that no murder charges will be filed against Lane. Sure, there will be dozens of other charges related to, among other things, attempted murder of Wilkins, but there will be nothing on her rap sheet indicating that she killed a person. That’s because, of course, in Colorado and in the rest of the country, an unborn infant doesn’t count as a person.

Matt Walsh: Gays Have No Right to be Free of Discrimination

Matt Walsh is, once again, making statements that make sense to rational people, so he will quite naturally be excoriated for speaking against the sacred meme of the Progressives, who are not concerned with common sense.

His most recent column is entitled: "Sorry Gays, you don't have the right to be free from discrimination."  You can read the whole essay by clicking HERE.

Herewith some clips from the piece:

"So this week Indiana passed a religious freedom bill that affirms a private individual’s business owner’s right to decide who they associate with and how they associate with them. This is partly a religious freedom thing, but it’s primarily just a matter of basic private property rights. It’s also terrain that’s already been rather explicitly covered in the First Amendment.

       "See, I’m tired of trying to sell these religious freedom bills based on the notion that a business owner refusing to service a gay wedding isn’t tantamount to discrimination. It is. It definitely is. And that’s definitely OK. Discrimination is not automatically a bad thing. It isn’t inherently evil. It simply means, by definition, that you are making a distinction for or against a person or thing. That’s what it means to discriminate. Synonyms: discern, distinguish, differentiate.

"Ah, well, I guess this is all academic. Gay rights activists aren’t worried about taking their arguments to their conclusions, or grounding them in any kind of comprehensible philosophical bedrock. All they know is that some people would prefer not to be involved in some of their activities, and this fact hurts their feelings, and therefore laws must be made and fines must be handed out and human rights charged must be levied. Constitution be damned. To hell with logic, reason, and consistency. This is about giving them what they want, how they want it. It’s got nothing to do with rights, really, which is why the argument based on rights is so staggeringly stupid and half baked. They haven’t taken the time to form it, because who cares? This really boils down to the idea that these business owners are being mean and homophobic, and that’s not nice."

Dr. Kathy Platoni on The Fort Hood Disgrace

Dr. Kathy Platoni, a clinical psychologist, retired Army colonel, and Fort Hood survivor, wrote today in the Wall Street Journal
an excellent summary of the total miscarriage of justice known as the Fort Hood Workplace Violence incident.   Her essay is a virtual indictment of the former supervisors of Nidal Hasan, the senior Army officers and civilians at the pentagon at the time, and three successive secretaries of defense, for refusing to acknowledge the massacre as a terrorist attack.  Anyone who would defend the politically correct behavior of those just mentioned, should harken to the instruction given to such blind allegiance to the indefensible : "Dispute the facts!"
You can read Dr. Platoni's entire essay by clicking on the above hyperlink, but herewith some pertinent snippets:

It was more than five years ago that the gunshots rang out, but those of us who survived can still hear their echoes. On Nov. 5, 2009, an Army psychiatrist named Nidal Hasan—an American radicalized by extremist Islamic beliefs—opened fire on his fellow soldiers in Fort Hood, Texas, killing 14 people, including an unborn child, and wounding 32...

At about 1:34 p.m., Hasan, seated in a building on base and armed with an FN five-seven pistol and a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver, paused to bow his head. Then he stood up from behind a cubicle, shouted “Allahu akbar!” (God is great) and began spraying bullets throughout the room... 

Hasan took direct aim at those in uniform, including 21-year-old Pvt. Francheska Velez, who had disarmed bombs in Iraq and recently learned she was nine weeks pregnant...

Hasan’s goal was to kill as many soldiers as possible. He was cold-eyed and systematic. We should have seen him coming...

The FBI and the Defense Department possessed sufficient information, collected over several years, to have detected Hasan’s radicalization. During his training, Hasan routinely and unmistakably violated strict standards by communicating with suspected terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki—email that the FBI intercepted. In 2007 he was required for his residency to give a scholarly psychiatric presentation. Instead he lectured on Islam, stating that nonbelievers should be beheaded and set on fire, and suggested that Muslim-Americans in the military pose a risk of fratricide. In another talk, Hasan justified suicide bombings on grounds that the U.S. is at war with Islam...

It is a gross miscarriage of justice that no one who supervised the shooter—overlooked his behavior and promoted him—has been held accountable. That the massacre is still labeled an incident of workplace violence committed by a disgruntled employee is delusional and contemptible. Because the massacre was not recognized as a terrorist attack, victims were deemed ineligible for combat-injury benefits, the Purple Heart, and its civilian counterpart, the Defense of Freedom medal. Three successive defense secretaries refused to change this designation, and five years passed...

Survivors of the massacre and the families of the dead are now finding some measure of justice. Congress has rewritten the language governing fallen warriors, and Army Secretary John McHugh has announced that Fort Hood victims will receive long-overdue medals. They will be offered burial plots at Arlington National Cemetery and compensation pay upon retirement. But further details remain unclear...

The victims of Nidal Hasan were denied pay, benefits and recognition because our leaders refused to acknowledge what the massacre clearly was: an act of terror by an Islamic extremist. They said it wasn’t combat, but it sure as hell felt like that. Hasan turned Fort Hood into a battlefield...

Congress has provided an opening to give my fellow soldiers what they are owed. It’s time for the Army to do so.

Do You Believe? - Official Trailer

Jason Riley: Black Liberals and Other Racists

Jason Riley, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and member of the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal, could be the second coming of Thomas Sowell.  He wrote today a piece entitled: Black Liberals and Oklahoma's Video Racists, in which he exposes once again the identity politics of the left - especially those in the media and the self-anointed black leaders.  The contrast between the Liberal meme and the reality is striking.

First the Liberal Meme:

The black left... specializes in scouring America for signs of remnant racism and seizing on them as evidence that little or nothing has really changed. So long as we have to live among the Donald Sterling and Cliven Bundys or those frat boys on the bus, the argument goes, racial gaps in academic achievement, employment, criminal behavior and other areas will persist.

But here's the reality:

Our majority-white country has a twice-elected black president who, in 2008, outperformed both John Kerry (in 2004) and Al Gore (in 2000) among white voters in states such as Texas, Georgia and the Carolinas. Hispanics govern New Mexico and Nevada, and Asians govern Louisiana and South Carolina, which also has a black senator. Yet Mr. Blow (a black columnist for the New York Times) cites the University of Oklahoma episode as proof that white racism in the U.S. today is “immeasurable” and “unyielding.”

Michael Crichton: Environmental Religion

The late Michael Crichton M.D., a man of many talents, spoke to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco in 2003, and the sum and substance of that speech was recorded today in the Wall Street Journal's Notable & Quotable section.  Al Gore would no doubt take strong exception to the following quote:

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe. . . .

There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden?

Megyn Kelly: The 'Dangerous' Lie Of Ferguson In Less Than 90 Seconds

BOOM! Watch Megyn Kelly Expose The 'Dangerous' Lie Of Ferguson In Less Than 90 Seconds

Fr. Emil Kapaun: M.O.H.: Traditional Catholic Priest

A video about Fr. Emil Kapaun was posted today on the site of Traditional Catholic Priest, and the hero of the Korean War was dubbed by Fr. Peter Carota the author of TCP, to be a true representative of the Traditional Catholic Priests fraternity.

Here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZuPrQBSDCs

William F. Buckley Jr.: The Sharon Statement

William F. Buckley, Jr. hosted a group of ninety young Conservatives at his home in Sharon Connecticut, on September 11, 1960.  At the conclusion of that meeting, the group issued a document now known as The Sharon Statement.  That statement became the founding document for the Young Americans for Freedom (YAF).

Today's Notable & Quotable piece in the Wall Street Journal informs that the Sharon Statement was written by M. Stanton Evans, who died last week at the age of 80.  It then reprints the statement, which you can read by clicking on the above hyper-link.  While every bit of the statement is both clear and profound, one particular quote stands out as being especially relevant today.

Here's the quote:    

...That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;...