1st Amendment

Cultural Marxism Key in Wedding Cake Fascism of the Left

Published by Papa Giorgio

I recently updated my defining of fascism here, reading that in total will help in understanding why gay men and women call these actions of laws against Christian bakers and photographers as fascism. To wit I wish to put in part here two posts by Gay Patriot and encourage you to click through to finsish the reading.

The first one is entitled, “The Gay Left Becomes a Hate Group,” it reads in part:

A pizza shop owner made the mistake of saying publicly that they didn’t care to be forced into catering a gay wedding. The left-wing MFM ginned up a fake story about a pizza shop that refused to cater gay weddings. Within a day, death threats… including a threat of arson from a public school teachers … forced the pizza shop to close.

And the gay left celebrated how effective they have become in their bullying.

[….]

Once it gets decided that certain people can have rights taken away from them by those who have power, violence follows inevitably.

Just imagine, for a second, if a gay-owned business had been forced to close because Christians threatened to burn it down and murder its employees.

The gay left has become the KKK, in 600 thread count Egyptian cotton sheets.

Here is the second article by GP that I recommend… IT is entitled, “Nobody Ever Died From Not Having a Wedding Cake“:

One aspect of the debate over whether Christians and others who don’t support gay marriage should be forced by the State (and threatened with violence) for declining to participate in gay weddings is … what’s the big deal with a wedding cake anyway? To the activist left, declining to bake a cake is no different than a lynching in the Jim Crow south. But does it really cause anyone any real quantifiable harm to send them to a different bakery? Or a different photographer? Or a different florist? Or a different wedding chapel?

If you really believe in liberty, then you have just accept that liberty means that people are going to make choices and do things that you may not agree with. And so long as they are not harming anyone else, they should be allowed to do so.

[….]

Bruised feelings do not rise to the level of actual harm.

Destroying someone’s livelihood through threats of violence —that is actual harm….

And this from the Canadian Free Press:

Bakers, photographers and florists are being forced to shut down their businesses unless they accede to demands that they join in the celebration of gay “marraiges,” but so far no one has faced jail time for putting commitment to the Word of God ahead of the demands of homosexuals and their cultural champions.

Until now. A couple in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho who own a wedding chapel there declined the request of a gay couple that they perform their “wedding.” They couple did what gay couples seem to do a lot in these situations. They didn’t just go find someone else. They complained to authorities, who are now threatening to throw the pastors in jail. That’s how out of control this has gotten:

The Idaho case involves Donald and Evelyn Knapp, both ordained ministers, who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel. Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex weddings in their own chapel.

The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,” and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.

On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined. The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.

Note how the secular left is trying to create a fascimile of the civil rights movement in turning these pastors into criminals, and doing so very disingenuously….

[….]

The Christian who believes homosexual sex is an abomination in the eyes of God cannot perform a gay wedding ceremony, or take photos of Bob and Gary, or write “Congratulations Anna and Shirley” on a cake without compromising his or her devotion to God. That is not the same thing as making them sandwiches.

The left wants the state to use the notion of “public accommodations” to force business owners to do things that directly violate their faith. The state is complying….

Update on Florists Refusal to Provide for Same-Sex Wedding

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is the update to the case via Alliance Defense Fund:

A state judge has determined that the government can force a floral designer to do custom design work and provide wedding support services even if she has a religious conviction that marriage is between one man and one woman. Barronelle Stutzman was found guilty for referring her friend and long-time customer to another florist because the customer wanted her to design floral arrangements and provide services for a  same-sex wedding. Barronelle’s referral ensured the customer received the services he wanted, but has been labeled “discrimination” under Washington law.

The court also ruled that both the state and the couple may collect damages and attorneys’ fees not only from the floral shop, but also from Stutzman personally.

The court said:

“On the evening of November 5, 2012, there was no conflict … The following evening, after the … enactment of same-sex marriage, there would eventually be a direct and insoluble conflict between Stutzman’s religiously motivated conduct and the laws of the State of Washington. Stutzman cannot comply with both the law and her faith if she continues to provide flowers for weddings as part of her duly-licensed business, Arlene’s Flowers.”

…read more…

And the Washington Times has this:

…“The message of these rulings is unmistakable: the government will bring about your personal and professional ruin if you don’t help celebrate same-sex marriage,” said Ms. Waggoner, who represents the florist, in a statement.

Ms. Stutzman was sued by the state of Washington and two men who had asked her in March 2013 to prepare flowers for their wedding, several months after the state approved gay marriage in 2012. One of the men, Robert Ingersoll, had been a customer of Arlene’s Flowers for nearly a decade.

Ms. Stutzman, who had served gay customers over the years, declined to create the custom floral arrangements for the wedding but referred the men to several other local florists.

“The two men had no problem getting the flowers they wanted. They received several offers for free flowers, and the marketplace gives them plenty of options,” Ms. Waggoner said. “Laws that are supposed to prohibit discrimination might sound good, but the government has begun to use these laws to hurt people – to force them to conform and to silence and punish them if they don’t violate their religious beliefs on marriage.”

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson praised the judge’s ruling Wednesday, saying, “The law is clear: If you choose to provide a service to couples of the opposite sex, you must provide the same service to same-sex couples.”…

[….]

“America would be a better place if citizens respected each others’ differences and the government still protected the freedom to have those differences,” said Ms. Stutzman. “Instead, the government is coming after me and everything I have just because I won’t live my life the way the state says I should.”

…read more… 

A Tenured Professor Fired Over “Speech Codes”

Published by Papa Giorgio

FIRE ~ to no avail ~ tried to get freedom of speech to reign at Marquette. The Warrior Has Been Fired. Now come the lawsuits I hope:

…The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has called for McAdams’s reinstatement in light of Marquette’s egregious violations of his rights.

“If Marquette can fire a tenured professor for criticizing a fellow teacher on a blog, then tenure at Marquette is worthless, as are freedom of speech and academic freedom,” said FIRE Executive Director Robert Shibley. “While this is more than likely just an excuse to get rid of McAdams, the fact that McAdams’s supposed offense was criticizing a teacher for squelching dissenting opinions in class only makes Marquette’s utter contempt for dissenters more obvious.”…

Baker Refused To Make Anti-Gay Cake ~ Going To Court (UPDATEd)

Published by Papa Giorgio

UPDATE via The Blaze:

It was a story that captured national attention last week: a Colorado baker claimed that a civil rights complaint was filed against her after she refused to make a cake that included the words “God hates gays.” But now the Christian activist who she accused of making that request is speaking out, claiming that he never asked for that specific message to be written on the cake.

Bill Jack, founder of Worldview Academy, a Christian organization, told the Christian Post that the words “God hates gays” were never part of his request of Azucar Bakery in Denver, Colorado, and that he, instead, had asked for two Bible-shaped cakes that included references to Psalm 45:7 and Leviticus 18:22, among other Bible verses.

It is true, however, that the cakes were to include an image representing his opposition to gay marriage as well as a statement that “Homosexuality is a detestable sin.”

“I requested two cakes each in the shape of an open Bible. On the first cake I requested on one page, ‘God hates sin – Psalm 45:7,’ and on the facing page, ‘Homosexuality is a detestable sin – Leviticus 18:22′,” Jack told the Christian Post. “On the second cake I requested on one page, ‘God loves sinners,’ and on the facing page, ‘While we were yet sinners Christ died for us – Romans 5:8.’”

For the record, I support gay bakers/photographers refusing to participate in celebrations that are against their personal position/conscious on gay-relationships… JUST AS I AM for Christian bakers/photographers who wish not to provide services for specific celebrations that are against their conscious or religious beliefs.

See the story here:

RPT’s Thoughts:

I don’t know anything about this guy who did this… he is the head of a Christian organization of some sort. BUT, if he were doing this to make a point, he chose poorly if in fact the phrase discussed is the one he chose. God loves gay men and women. And He wishes they would turn from their sin to the embrace of their savior… JUST like the heterosexual.

HOWEVER, that being said, to make the point and show that government intrusion into the contractual freedoms in the 1st Amendment and the business owner and costumer relations, the stronger point that would have said this in a more loving way and probably still gone to court would be something like this:

▼ God Hates Sin: Homosexual Relations are Sin.

Or you could say you are getting the cake for a gay family member with this inscription on it:

▼ “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” ~ Leviticus 18:22

Be creative for God’s sake.

...UPDATE

It was brought to my attention that the media may be running with a story that has been embellished a bit. (Embellished by the media and their own “pro-LGBT” leanings, or by the owner/employees of the bakery. Either way, “Lucy! ~ you gotta some splainin’ to do”.) Some articles seem to portray the Azucar Bakery’s pastry chef, Lindsay Jones, and owner, Marjorie Silva, either not remembering fully the phrase wanted on the cake or offering different versions of the same event. For instance, Out Front notes:

“He wanted us to write God hates …” she trails. “Just really radical stuff against gays.” … “He wouldn’t allow me to make a copy of the message, but it was really hateful,” Marjorie adds. “I remember the words detestable, disgrace, homosexuality, and sinners.”

Denver Eater has this:

The man filed a discrimination complaint Colorado’s Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA). Silva received a letter from the agency and had to reply to it. This is her reply, in part:

I can … tell you that the customer wanted us to draw two males holding hands … with a big ‘X’ on them. I told him that we do not like to discriminate in this bakery, we accept all humans and that the message and drawing is extremely rude.

So the bakery owner may be changing her story to get more sympathy from the media who will be more-than-happy to oblige. OR, the media is making this up original phrase “God Hates Gays” up whole clothe.

~ Hat-Tip to Marco C.

The bottom line is this however, God wants everyone to turn from their sins, whether straight or gay. Sin, in fact, is not partial to any one’s tastes or proclivities. And I know dealing with my “natural man” has been a long and tough road, and will continue as such till I am standing before my savior — glorified by His finished work at Calvary and by no might of my own. Many gay persons who are religious and bow to the evidence of Jesus and Who He Is, change their lives drastically for their God. These battles create mature men and women of the faith, full of reliance on God and a growing wisdom of the grace afforded them (James 1:2-7).

“This is a free speech issue, and we support freedom of speech. It’s also a religious or conscience issue — the government should not force people to violate their core beliefs,” Johnston told the outlet. ”Just as a Christian baker should not be required to create a cake for a same-sex ceremony, this baker should not be required to create a cake with a message that goes against her conscience.”

[Note that “they” do not change their lives… they remove themselves from the equation as much as they can by allowing the Holy Spirit to indwell them and build up the “New Man” in them… this “removing oneself” from the equation is also by the might of the indwelling of this new miraculous nature that fights the old man. So by God alone are we changed.]

AGAIN, if this guy was making a point… he did so poorly and thus reduced his effectiveness to make a serious impact. Many on my side of the fence do not think well on these issues. I may even agree with their basic premise while simultaneously understanding that in their fallen nature they may not have expressed themselves as they had hoped — upon further reflection. (I can always improve in this area as well.) Nor those receiving the intended message [expressed well or not expressed well] may themselves be unregenerate in the life changing power of the Lambs blood, thus putting a worse spin or intention on what was said:

  • The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so (Romans 8:7)

This re-wording I noted above would have gotten more gay men and women I am acquaintances with on board… even if they disagree with the message.

The point of the above is that it shows the bankruptcy of decisions against bakers and photographers who for religious purposes choose not to bake for same-sex wedding celebrations or take photographs for such events. Special rights creates categories of people that are not protected equally under the law. You can see how these growing number of groups are butting heads. This thinking is anathema to these United States:

LIKE the lesbian shirt company owners that are FOR same-sex marriage but realize freedom is under attack when a Christian shirt maker refused to make shirts for a gay-pride event. These two women “get it,” as do the cohorts at Gay-Patriot.

We are all adults and know the Constitutional doesn’t protect people from “personal offense.” IN OTHER WORDS, the Constitution basically says “people will be offended.” Read it… that is, READ about the First Amendment (here and here).

“Intolerance” [Thought Police] is Synonymous with Higher Education

Published by Papa Giorgio

Video Description:

Dennis Prager interviews a tenured Professor John McAdams from Marquette University… a Jesuit [Catholic] University. He recounts a student being told — essentially — that any in-class discussion of same-sex marriage is akin to bigotry and intolerance.

The Professor has a blog entitled “MARQUETTE WARRIOR” where he recounts this issue. Of course it was picked up by other sites as well, for instance, Breitart, as well as on national radio (listen herein).

The irony is that this is suppose to be a religious institution and a place for higher learning. In all the philosophy classes I have been in I have never had the right NOT to be offended when talk of my Christian faith comes into class discussion. Nor would I want or force people to accept the claims of my faith “in situ.”

Challenge and freedom of thought IS a corner stone of any healthy society. We see what barbaric societies do to try and intolerantly make another civilized society tolerant (speaking here of Charlie Hebdo).

If, in a philosophy or ethics class, or a political science class subjects are untouchable… is this not an intolerant form of governance on the university level? Where thinking outside of boxes or freedom of expression and thought are suppose to be paramount? It turns out the university is the most “unfree” place in America — the opposite of its goal I think:

▼ What Are the Least Free Places in America? Universities (PragerU)

This is a sad-sad story.

For more clear thinking like this from Dennis Prager… I invite you to visit: http://www.dennisprager.com/

12-Cartoonists Gave Their Life For Freedom (Updated)

Published by Papa Giorgio

The AP refused to post any images like this:

Muhammad 2

Muhammad

Other media sites pixelated the image out, her for instance is the Daily Mail:

PIXEL

However, for decades the AP has had this image up and even like it enough to sell a copy of it:

Piss Christ

Here is the The Blaze noting this inconsistency first pointed out via The Washington Examiner:

The Associated Press is coming under fire over its inconsistency in dealing with controversial religious images, after censoring photos that could offend Muslims, while leaving a photo that could offend Christians intact.

[….]

“It’s been our policy for years that we refrain from moving deliberately provocative images,” AP spokesman Paul Colford told BuzzFeed.

But the Washington Examiner noted that the Associated Press has long featured Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ” image, in which Jesus on the cross is immersed in the photographer’s urine. After the “Piss Christ” image drew attention online, the AP pulled it from its database.

Unfortunately the AP got it backwards. They should have posted this for sale right along the piss christ::

Moonbattery notes this:

As Zombie reminds us, the point of terrorizing Charlie Hedbo was to impose sharia law. Muslims can silence one publication, and they can easily silence their liberal media enablers, but they can’t silence the whole Internet.

Do your part to defend Western Civilization by disseminating pictures Muslims don’t like far and wide, by blog, social media, email, pony express, or whatever means you have.

But where to get the pictures? Easy.

The Mohammed Image Archive, which I have hosted at zombietime since the day of the original “Mohammed cartoon crisis” back in May of 2006, has not only a full collection of the original cartoons, but more importantly the largest collection of Mohammed imagery ever assembled in the history of the world.

  • After the Examiner piece published, the AP apparently took down the “Piss Christ”purchase link.
  • UPDATE: From the AP, you can still purchase a painting of the Virgin Mary decorated with elephant feces. <— That is now down as well.

CNN still has it’s up even though Breitbart has noted the following:

Politico has obtained an email from CNN senior editorial director Richard Griffiths that tells staffers that the Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoons are not to be shown on any CNN platform. “Although we are not at this time showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the Prophet considered offensive by many Muslims,” Griffith writes, “platforms are encouraged to verbally describe the cartoons in detail.”

What can be found big as life at CNN’s website are numerous photos of “Piss Christ.” On top of the photo embedded above, this was sent to me from a Twitter follower.

 

 

Just How Much Have Democrats Changed in 20-Years? (Mark Steyn)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Mark Steyn (http://www.steynonline.com/) responds to the question of how far the Democrat Party has moved in 20[+] years in regards to its extremism. Senator Ted Cruz notes how far, for example, the Democrats have moved leftward from Ted Kennedy on the First Amendment (below).

For more clear thinking like this from Hugh Hewitt… I invite you to visit: http://www.hughniverse.com/

If you asked a student to listen to Kennedy’s inaugural speech — without letting them know who was giving it, do you think they would say it was a Republican or Democrat? 

MUST Bake Cakes for Gay Events, Plus, Reeducation Camps For You

Published by Papa Giorgio

In another case a Christian bakery shut down due to mob tactics (e.g., fascism):

NPR’s Nina Totenberg, on the July 8, 1995 edition of Inside Washington wished for Jesse Helms and/or his grandkids to get AIDS.

Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests

….“It’s a sad day for Christian business owners and it’s a sad day for the First Amendment,” owner Aaron Klein told me. “The LGBT attacks are the reason we are shutting down the shop. They have killed our business through mob tactics.”

Last January, Aaron and Melissa Klein made national headlines when they refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

Klein tells me he has nothing against homosexuals — but because of their religious faith, the family simply cannot take part in gay wedding events.

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said. “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.”

The lesbian couple filed a discrimination with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and told their story to local newspapers and television statements.

Within days, militant homosexuals groups launched protests and boycotts. Klein told me he received messages threatening to kill his family. They hoped his children would die. [an old liberal tactic, see video to the right.]

The LGBT protestors then turned on other wedding vendors around the community. They threatened to boycott any florists, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa.

“That tipped the scales,” Klein said. “The LGBT activists inundated them with phone calls and threatened them. They would tell our vendors, ‘If you don’t stop doing business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa, we will shut you down.’”….

See previous post on “camp” topic: The Kiss of Tolerance = “Tolerance” Camps for Dissenters

Confused About the Ongoing Bundy Ranch Debacle? Read On…

Published by Papa Giorgio

I have been a bit confused as well, but after a few days of digesting news — old and new media — I have come to the conclusion that if I had the time/money I would take a trip out to the Bundy Ranch and help. Below is some of the news that fortified this previous “on-the-fence” position I had.

(The below video is via GOP Daily Dose.) An earlier video had me hoping this would end well, but alas, it turns out Harry Reid was right for once when he said, “Well, it’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over” (Breitbart).

Firstly, I wish to thank Powerline for a well written, thought out, presentation that has cleared up some more issues for me. I suggest reading their entire article entitled: “Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy,” it is worth the time.

On Saturday, I wrote about the standoff at Bundy Ranch. That post drew a remarkable amount of traffic, even though, as I wrote then, I had not quite decided what to make of the story. Since then, I have continued to study the facts and have drawn some conclusions. Here they are.

First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument.

That being the case, why does Bundy deserve our sympathy? To begin with, his family has been ranching on the acres at issue since the late 19th century. They and other settlers were induced to come to Nevada in part by the federal government’s promise that they would be able to graze their cattle on adjacent government-owned land. For many years they did so, with no limitations or fees. The Bundy family was ranching in southern Nevada long before the BLM came into existence.

Over the last two or three decades, the Bureau has squeezed the ranchers in southern Nevada by limiting the acres on which their cattle can graze, reducing the number of cattle that can be on federal land, and charging grazing fees for the ever-diminishing privilege. The effect of these restrictions has been to drive the ranchers out of business. Formerly, there were dozens of ranches in the area where Bundy operates. Now, his ranch is the only one. When Bundy refused to pay grazing fees beginning in around 1993, he said something to the effect of, they are supposed to be charging me a fee for managing the land and all they are doing is trying to manage me out of business. Why should I pay them for that?…. (continued after break)…

LOL! Government Thinks the 1st Amendment Is an Area (Scary)

“Let’s be clear: the BLM is its own worst enemy on this issue, and many others. The agency’s ludicrous mishandling of this week’s protests with “First Amendment Zones” and the like is part and parcel of a years-long and mounting disrespect for public involvement in the management of its own lands. The probably illegal denial of public comment at solar project hearings we reported on in 2011 remains BLM Desert District policy, an issue we’re continuing to track.” (KCET)

The Washington Times gets to the core of the issue and why a militarized force (many government agencies, even the Post Office, that have no law enforcement needs have such units now) may be being used. And it is where an administration places it’s eggs:

Mr. Reid’s son Rory Reid, a former Clark County commissioner, represented ENN Mojave Energy, a Chinese-backed company seeking to build a $5 billion solar plant near Laughlin, Nev. The company ultimately dropped those plans after failing to secure sufficient financial backing, according to reports.

That project was more than 100 miles from the Bundy Ranch, Ms. Orthman said.

A separate solar project, involving a local Indian tribe, that Mr. Reid has pushed also does not overlap with the Bundy ranch.

“[Harry] Reid’s push for solar energy development in southern Nevada included attendance last month at a groundbreaking ceremony for a solar power facility that involves the Moapa Band of Pauites and First Solar Inc.,” said the KLAS-TV report. “But that 250-megawatt power plant will be roughly 35 miles southwest of the Bundy ranch.”

…read more…

Powerline continues to explain there may be some alternative energy interests (the Washington Times article directly above) involved in why the BLM is enforcing the issue right now, and then PL goes on to explain:

…So it is possible that the federal government is driving Bundy off federal lands to make way for mitigation activities that enable the solar energy development to the north. But I don’t think it is necessary to go there. Rather–this is the second and more important point–it is obvious that some activities are favored by the Obama administration’s BLM, and others are disfavored. The favored developments include solar and wind projects. No surprise there: the developers of such projects are invariably major Democratic Party donors. Wind and solar energy survive only by virtue of federal subsidies, so influencing people like Barack Obama and Harry Reid is fundamental to the developers’ business plans. Ranchers, on the other hand, ask nothing from the federal government other than the continuation of their historic rights. It is a safe bet that Cliven Bundy is not an Obama or Reid contributor.

The new head of the BLM is a former Reid staffer. Presumably he was placed in his current position on Reid’s recommendation. Harry Reid is known to be a corrupt politician, one who has gotten wealthy on a public employee’s salary, in part, at least, by benefiting from sweetheart real estate deals. Does Harry Reid now control more than 80% of the territory of Nevada? If you need federal authority to conduct business in Nevada–which is overwhelmingly probable–do you need to pay a bribe to Harry Reid or a member of his family to get that permission? Why is it that the BLM is deeply concerned about desert tortoises when it comes to ranchers, but couldn’t care less when the solar power developers from China come calling? Environmentalists have asked this question. Does the difference lie in the fact that Cliven Bundy has never contributed to an Obama or Reid campaign, or paid a bribe to Reid or a member of his family?

Based on the evidence, I would say: yes, that is probably the difference. When the desert tortoises balance out, Occam’s razor tells us that the distinction is political.

So let’s have some sympathy for Cliven Bundy and his family. They don’t have a chance on the law, because under the Endangered Species Act and many other federal statutes, the agencies are always in the right. And their way of life is one that, frankly, is on the outs. They don’t develop apps. They don’t ask for food stamps. It probably has never occurred to them to bribe a politician. They don’t subsist by virtue of government subsidies or regulations that hamstring competitors. They aren’t illegal immigrants. They have never even gone to law school. So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama?

Read it all!

Here is a good explanation in media form via FreeDomain Radio that clearly goes through the many aspects of this confrontation.. well:

(From the above videos description) Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy – of Bundy Ranch – is locked in a standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management over illegal cattle grazing, endangered tortoises and property rights. It gets even better…

The fight involves a 600,000-acre area under BLM control called Gold Butte, near the Utah border. The is the habitat of the protected desert tortoise, and the land has been off-limits for cattle since 1998.

Five years before that, when grazing was legal, Bundy stopped paying federal fees for the right. Bundy stopped paying grazing fees in 1993. He said he didn’t have to because his Mormon ancestors worked the land since the 1880s, giving him rights to the land.

“We own this land,” he said, not the feds. He said he is willing to pay grazing fees but only to Clark County, not BLM.

“Years ago, I used to have 52 neighboring ranchers,” he said. “I’m the last man standing. How come? Because BLM regulated these people off the land and out of business.”

Nevada, where various federal agencies manage or control more than 80 percent of the land, is among several Western states where ranchers have challenged federal land ownership.

Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.fdrurl.com/donate

Another good “new media” presentation filters out the junk and provides the below cache of the original issue and drive behind the Bundy Ranch “round-up” ~ pun intended. This comes via SCG News:

Cached Forensic Evidence

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Mozilla Co-Founder Brendan Eich Out for Marriage Views (UPDATED)

Published by Papa Giorgio
...Tammy Bruce Lays Down the Law!

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” ~ Last Line, Animal Farm, George Orwell. (h/t, GayPatriot)

More at Twitchy!

Breitbart posts the AP story on Brendan Eich that should familiarize those with the story:

Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich is stepping down as CEO after protests of his support of a gay marriage ban in California.

The Mountain View-based nonprofit maker of the Firefox browser had promoted him last week.

At issue was Eich’s $1,000 donation in 2008 to the campaign to pass California’s Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that outlawed same-sex marriages. The ban was overturned when the U.S. Supreme Court last year left in place a lower-court ruling striking down the ballot measure.

Mozilla Chairwoman Mitchell Baker apologized for the company’s actions in an open letter online Thursday. She says Eich is stepping down for the company’s sake.

She says Mozilla believes in equality and freedom of speech. It is still discussing what is next for its leadership.

Gateway Pundit drives home the importance of this action that should imbolden those who care about freedom:

And, how did gay groups know Eich donated money to the Proposition 8 Campaign? Because the Obama IRS leaked this information to a gay-advocacy group in 2012. First Things reported, via The Tatler:

Amazingly enough, it is entirely due to the fact that Eich made a $1,000 donation to the campaign urging a ‘yes’ vote on California’s Proposition 8. When this fact first came to light in 2012, after the Internal Revenue Service leaked a copy of the National Organization for Marriage’s 2008 tax return to a gay-advocacy group, Eich, who was then CTO of Mozilla, published a post on his personal blog stating that his donation was not motivated by any sort of animosity towards gays or lesbians, and challenging those who did not believe this to cite any “incident where I displayed hatred, or ever treated someone less than respectfully because of group affinity or individual identity.”

Gay Patriot adds some key thoughts with a couple posts from Twitter (above and below):

The hounding of Brendan Eich has inspired Andrew Sullivan to direct some disapprobation toward some people who actually deserve it for a  change.

His flaw lies in assuming the progressive left wants a “tolerant and diverse society.” They don’t. Read the responses to his Tweet. Most of them are totally on-board with intolerance and witch-hunts.

The gay left is reveling in their power to ruin anyone whose opinion is not in line with what they consider acceptable. As I said before, they are only going to get more obnoxious….

UPDATE!

60% of Intel Employees Supported Prop 8

Uh oh: 60% of Intel employees who donated in Prop 8 debate supported banning gay marriage

….Political correctness begins on your own desktop, my friends.

The Los Angeles Times maintains a database of contributions for and against Proposition 8. The database includes the names of a donor’s employer, as is required by campaign finance law. I checked the records for some of the largest technology companies in Silicon Valley: specifically those that were in the Fortune 500 as of 2008. The list includes Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Cisco Systems, Apple, Google, Sun Microsystems, eBay, Oracle, Yahoo, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Symantec. I limited the search to donors who listed California as their location.

In total between these 11 companies, 83 percent of employee donations were in opposition to Proposition 8. So Eich was in a 17 percent minority relative to the top companies in Silicon Valley…

However, there was quite a bit of variation from business to business. At Intel, 60 percent of employee donations were in support of Proposition 8. By contrast, at Apple, 94 percent of employee donations were made in opposition to Proposition 8. The opposition was even higher at Google, where 96 percent of employee donations were against it, including $100,000 from co-founder Sergey Brin.

Follow the link for Silver’s table with the numbers for each company. The only footnote to Intel being the sole outlier is that, at Hewlett-Packard, while there were more employees who donated against Prop 8 than for it (103/54), supporters ended up donating more actual money than opponents did ($40,990/$32,616). Sounds like someone, or ones, at HP is busting out big bucks to defeat equality. We should find them. “HP” does resemble “H8,” you know….

Progressives Want State Run-Dictatorships (redundant) ~ And Proudly Say So

Published by Papa Giorgio

Frontpage Magazine explains the above graphic found in a leftist/progressive/liberal Slate article:

Salon was a major presence on the liberal web before Atlantic, Slate and the Daily Beast began gobbling up all its traffic. Now it’s become a student newspaper tackling hot button issues involving transgender cafeterias and microcelebrity twitter outrages.

Considering how badly Salon is failing, it makes sense why it would look forward to the nationalization of the media, but it’s also just as stupid as you expect it to be. Case in point, this…

Imagine a world without the New York Times, Fox News, CNN, the Wall Street Journal, and countless other tools used by the 1 percent to rule and fool. In a socialist society run by and for the working people it represents, the mega-monopolies like Walmart, Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and the corporations that run the tightly controlled “mainstream media” will be a thing of the past.

Socialist countries do have independent media outlets. Salon and Fred Jerome apparently mean Marxist-Leninist. They just don’t say so because even their readers might question what there was to admire about Pravda.

A democratic, accessible-to-all media will move to center stage in a socialist USA. In some ways this democratization of the media is already happening on the Internet. But the government’s ability to spy on and even turn off the Internet belies any real democracy. In a socialist democracy, working people will control the political process, the way in which they make a living, and collectively and individually, they will influence mass culture.

If you’re following this megaton level of stupid, Salon envisions an all-powerful Socialist state where the government will not be able to spy on people or control the internet.

…read more…

The Federalist (Gary) makes the point of the article clear:

The crazy-ass American Left just can’t get over that they were not alive during the Russian Bolshevik Revolution.  If only they could have been there then things would have been done right.

Now the screwballs at Salon.com put their Marxist wet-dreams on the Internet as proof of what they really want for America.

Gary continues with a few excerpts:

✚ ‘Bye, Rush! If corporate media disappeared the people could have their voices heard.’
✚ Imagine a world without the New York Times, Fox News, CNN, the Wall Street Journal, and countless other tools used by the 1 percent to rule and fool.
✚ In a socialist society run by and for the working people it represents, the mega-monopolies like Walmart, Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and the corporations that run the tightly controlled “mainstream media” will be a thing of the past.
✚ Besides accumulating their own profits, the media are daily trumpets for the rest of the corporate world’s advertising.
✚ The (newspaper) ads are laid out before anything else except the lead stories; the other news and feature stories are then fit between ads. . . . Media owners’ profits do not come primarily from the money we spend to buy their publications, but from the ads inside them.

Oh the horror!  Imagine a business actually planning out advertising so they could collect money and pay the wages of their employees!

Because they are losing the PR battle, they want to cook the books by destroying leftist media as well in order to STOP Fox News and Talk radio acolytes from having a platform (because they SMOKE similar programs in ratings).