Colorado

Colorado Upper Court Uses 14th Amendment – Illegally

Published by Papa Giorgio

(UPDATED BELOW)

NATIONAL REVIEW discusses the options in front of the courts… but remember, another way (split the horns Plato) is available. One site says “CHECKMATE” regarding this option. More below.

Chris Christie is no fan of Trump, yet, he can see the main issue at hand:

Christie

Jonathan Turley notes the following on TWITTER:

The Colorado Supreme Court has handed down the most anti-democratic opinion in decades. Yet, these justices barred voters from [voting] for their preferred candidate in the name of democracy. It is like burning down a house in the name of fire safety.

[….]

The Colorado Supreme Court has issued an unsigned opinion disqualifying Trump from the ballot: “The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified.” …

…This ends a string of losses for advocates of this dangerous novel theory. They finally found a court that would embrace what the court admits is a case of “first impression.” My first impression remains that same. The court is dead wrong in my view…

…It is striking that the court relies on Schenck v. U.S., where the Court upheld the denial of core free speech rights of a socialist opposing a war. The opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court is so sweeping that it would allow for tit-for-tat removals of candidates from ballots….

…The opinion is remarkable in how the four justices adopted the most sweeping interpretations to get over each barrier. The result is lack of a limiting principle. I view the opinion as strikingly anti-democratic in what it now allows states to do in blue and red states alike.

[….]

James Freeman Clarke once said “a politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation.” It is time for President Joe Biden to show that he can think of the next generation and oppose this insidious ruling.

[….]

Much can be said about this decision, but restraint is not one of them. The four Colorado justices had to adopt the most sweeping interpretation on every key element. The only narrow part of the opinion came with the interpretation of the First Amendment.

In a very truncated clip from a longer video via Bannon’s War Room, Alan Dershowitz says the following:

Dershowitz

TRANSCRIPT:

Even people like me, who would welcome the loss – on political grounds, wouldn’t accept it on Constitutional grounds, because this is about the most dangerous, worst, and…

um, unconstitutional decision I’ve read in my 60 years of teaching and practicing criminal law.

This is a power grab.

In violation of the specific words of the 14th amendment, you couldn’t be clearer when the 14th amendment allocates the power to enforce this provision.

  • “expressly and singularly to Congress, Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation”

Having the States do this? On an individual basis is (a) absurd under contemporary law. And as well, the idea that the framers of the 14th amendment, radical Reconstructionists, would allocate to Mississippi and Alabama… ahh… the right to decide who’s on the ballot, ah, just defies any kind of historical understanding.

POWERLINE has a decent update to their article expanding where the case may weave it way to:

UPDATE: A number of readers have wondered why I said the Supreme Court is unlikely to intervene. On reflection, that was an offhand comment that was not thoroughly thought through. There were two reasons for it:

First, the Republican majority on the Court is highly reluctant to wade into waters that are seen as political. Ruling in Trump’s favor would use up a large share of the Court’s diminished political capital, and Trump is hardly the person on whom the justices want to expend that precious commodity. On the other hand, the application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a federal question that is squarely presented by this case and may not be easy to duck.

Second, the Court would need to act fast, as the primary season is nearly upon us. Normally, litigating any case in the Supreme Court takes time. I assume the Court would want to hear from a number of parties and would want extensive briefing. On a normal calendar, I don’t think there is enough time for that to happen. On the other hand, the Court can act more quickly if it wants to, and if it is willing to expend, in this case, the necessary political capital. So it could be possible.

A friend who is a very good lawyer writes:

I suspect that in fact the Supreme Court will immediately grant an emergency appeal and will rule 9-0, or 8-1 if Justice Jackson wants to be her usual moronic self, to overturn the Colorado decision. I imagine that every justice on the Supreme Court understands the implications of the decision, which would mean that any partisan state court could take the other party’s candidate off the ballot. So I will be shocked if they don’t feel the urgency to settle this once and for all. In fact, there has to be a lot of concern about the partisan turn of the courts in general.

I hope my friend is correct. I would only note that in the minds of many voters, the “partisan turn” of the courts is in our direction under the current Court–something to which the justices are acutely sensitive. And for the Democratic justices to renounce partisanship by voting in a way that is good for America but bad for the Democrats, in a high-profile, politically-charged case, is theoretically possible, but I am not sure there is any precedent for it.

FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE UPDATE!

The “Insurrection Clause” Doesn’t Apply Without a Declaration of Insurrection:

Colorado judges don’t get to declare that there was a federal insurrection.

[….]

For the “insurrection clause” to apply, there has to be an insurrection. That means there has to be a declaration of insurrection.

Congress and the Lincoln administration both defined and declared an insurrection. There’s been no declaration now which means, legally speaking, there’s no insurrection and therefore no insurrection clause applies.

The 14th is still a legal minefield in this regard and the ability of a president to claim insurrection is in theory an open-ended nightmare. Biden could, for example, hypothetically declare that an insurrection is underway, but he hasn’t so the point is null.

Colorado judges, random uninvolved state legislatures and Uncle Bob do not get to define an insurrection against federal authority. Only federal authorities get to declare an insurrection. Neither Trump nor Biden declared one of those.

New York, for example, could not unilaterally decide that Confederate states were in a state of insurrection. But that is what Colorado is trying to do here. States ought to usurp federal authority more often, but this is a blatantly illegal usurpation.

And the factual forest should not be lost for the legalistic trees.

Other States To Use Colorado Ruling

Of course, as other states try ta do this using the Colorado “ruling,” …. which RED STATE notes:

California’s Lieutenant Governor, Eleni Kounalakis, has sent a memo to the California Secretary of State, Shirley Weber, seeking to have Donald Trump removed from California’s primary ballot. 

[….]

The memo states in part:

Specifically, the Colorado Supreme Court held in Anderson v. Griswold (2023 CO 63) that Trump’s insurrection disqualifies him under section three of the Fourteenth Amendment to stand for presidential re-election. Because the candidate is ineligible, the court ruled, it would be a “wrongful act” for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on that state’s presidential primary ballot.

That’s wrong. It’s so wrong it’s not even in the same time zone as right. The entire argument here is based on nothing more than raw assertion: “Donald Trump is guilty of insurrection because of course he is.”….

routing the courts by caucusing trump

Of course, if this ruling is allowed to stand and the real SUPES don’t fix it, there are other ways to vote for voters to express their God-Given ability for freedom (RED STATE):

…As I predicted to my oldest son when the decision dropped Tuesday night, there’s one remedy the Republican Party can use to avoid all of this expensive and time-consuming lawfare completely. To its credit, the Colorado Republican Party almost immediately said that they would invoke it.

That remedy: Switch to a caucus to determine the party’s nominee….

CHECKMATE!

Judge Rejects Attempt to Remove Trump From Colorado Ballot

Published by Papa Giorgio

THE FEDERALIST has an article again noting what my last three topics (first, second, and third posts) regarding the issue are: “the President is not included in the 14th Amendment.”

The Minnesota Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Claims threw out challenges attempting to strike former President Donald Trump’s name from 2024 presidential primary election ballots. However, the courts left open the possibility of his removal from general presidential election ballots. Similar cases are pending across the country, and a decision is expected to be made today in a Colorado lawsuit.

The lawsuits, brought by leftist activist organizations, argue that because Trump was giving a speech to his supporters near the White House while protesters flooded the Capitol in a supposed “insurrection” on Jan. 6, 2021, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies him from appearing on ballots.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment reads:

“No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … as an officer of the United States … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

There are several issues with the lawsuits attempting to brazenly interfere in the next presidential election, starting with the fact that Trump did not “engage in an insurrection or rebellion.” No federal court has convicted Trump of such a thing. Moreover, the Senate acquitted Trump of the second impeachment resolution, which charged him with “Incitement of Insurrection.”

According to Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, there is also “a serious question of whether the disqualification provision of Section 3 even still exists as a constitutional matter.” As Spakovsky explained, “Section 3 gives Congress the ability to remove the disqualification provision and void Section 3 by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress,” and in 1872 and 1898, “Congress did just that” by passing two Amnesty Acts.

In Minnesota, the state Supreme Court refused to even consider Trump’s removal from the general election ballots because the issue is “neither ripe, nor is it ‘about to occur.’” Indeed, no one technically knows whether Trump will win the Republican primary and therefore be eligible to appear on general election ballots.

As for the primary election, the court concluded Section 3 is irrelevant. “[T]his is an internal party election to serve internal party purposes,” stated the court, “And there is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office.”

However, the court did leave open the possibility of Trump’s disqualification in the general election if he wins the primary.

In Michigan, state Court of Claims Judge James Redford ruled that Trump could not be removed from primary ballots because the primaries are an internal political party affair. Like in Minnesota, Redford left the door open for Trump’s removal from the general election, but he also strongly suggested that no court can rule on Trump’s eligibility in the general election because that decision should be left up to Congress.

“The questions involved are by their nature political,” Redford wrote. “It takes the decision of whether there was a rebellion or insurrection and whether or not someone participated in it from the Congress, a body made up of elected representatives of the people of every state in the nation, and gives it to but one single judicial officer, a person who no matter how well intentioned, evenhanded, fair and learned, cannot in any manner or form possibly embody the represented qualities of every citizen of the nation—as does the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

[….]

Legal experts predict that this boldest ploy yet to interfere in a presidential election will likely reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

JUST THE NEWS notes the same at the end of their article: “Activist group Free Speech for People has since asked the Wolverine State’s top bench to intervene.”

RED STATE shows the Judge involved believes Trump met the rules for the 14th, but that the 14th doesn’t apply to the President:

There’s a new decision among the cases making their way through the nation’s judicial system that seek to bar former President Donald Trump from 2024 presidential ballots by using section three of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution — but it’s complicated. So bear with me.

Let’s start with the basics of what Colorado District Judge Sarah B. Wallace wrote in her ruling: First, she rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the 14th Amendment was intended to be read as the President of the United States is ““an officer of the United States.” Judge Wallace decided that by finding that “Section 3 did not include the presidential oath in that category.”

The clause does not explicitly name the presidency, so that question hinged on whether the president was included in the category “officer of the United States.”

The complication comes in after that. Yes, in the end, the decision by this state judge is that this cannot be used to keep the former president off Colorado’s ballot. But that wasn’t all that she determined in her ruling — and this part will likely please the leftists and Never Trump antagonists:

With his actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled, Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution, an offense that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which was ratified in 1868 to keep former Confederates out of the government — deems disqualifying for people who previously took an oath to support the Constitution.

In other words, she said Trump “incited” the people who took part in entering the Capitol.

[….]

This isn’t over, in other words, and it’s believed that the Colorado case will likely end up at the Supreme Court……

Washington States Inclusive Morbidity Rates (Gun Shot Victims)

Published by Papa Giorgio

PJ-MEDIA has some “bones” to pick with Washington State.

  • On Thursday, the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) confirmed a report by the Freedom Foundation that they have included those who tested positive for COVID-19 but died of other causes, including gunshot injuries, in their coronavirus death totals. This calls into serious question the state’s calculations of residents who have actually died of the CCP pandemic.
  • Last week, after it was reported that, like Washington, Colorado was counting deaths of all COVID-19 positive persons regardless of cause (which had resulted in the inclusion of deaths from alcohol poisoning), the Colorado Department of Health and Environment began to differentiate between deaths “among people with COVID-19” and “deaths due to COVID-19.”

PJ-MEDIA continues with some key aspects of Washington’s Dept of Health being cornered by facts:

The Freedom Foundation’s original report, based on DOH documents and statements provided to the Foundation, concluded that, of the 828 COVID-19 deaths reported as of May 8:

  • 681 (82 percent) “list some variation of ‘COVID-19’ in one of the causes of death” on the death certificate;
  • 41 (5 percent) of the death certificates do not list COVID-19 as a cause of death, but indicate it was a “significant condition contributing to death.”
  • 106 (13 percent) deaths involved persons who had previously tested positive for COVID-19 but did not have the virus listed anywhere on their death certificate as either causing or contributing to death.

When asked about the Foundation’s report at a press conference Monday, Gov. Jay Inslee dismissed it as “dangerous,” “disgusting” and “malarkey.” He further accused the Freedom Foundation of “fanning these conspiracy claims from the planet Pluto” and not caring about the lives lost to COVID-19.

[….]

1. DOH includes deaths of all persons who tested positive for COVID-19 in its totals, even if the victims died from other causes, such as gunshot wounds.

“Our (DOH COVID-19) dashboard numbers do include any deaths to a person that has tested positive to COVID-19.”

“We don’t always know the cause of death for a death when it is first reported on our dashboard. That is true. Over the course of the outbreak, we have been monitoring and recording the causes of death as we know it. We currently do have some deaths that are being reported that are clearly from other causes. We have about five deaths — less than five deaths — that we know of that are related to obvious other causes. In this case, they are from gunshot wounds.”

2. DOH may update the way it reports COVID-19 deaths going forward.

“Over the course of the outbreak, we have been very aware of a small number of deaths being reported on our dashboard that end up not being due to COVID… We will be removing them over time from our death count.”

“Our current dashboards reflect anybody that has died from COVID irrespective of cause of death. Those numbers will be adjusted.”

“We are really trying to figure out how best to report out the information on the COVID deaths in a way that is more understandable and still is accurate and is in real time as possible.”

3. DOH really doesn’t know how many deaths are due to COVID-19.

“Our process for identifying COVID-19 deaths basically speeds up our regular process but cuts out much of the data-quality processes.”

“Ultimately… we suspect that we are actually more likely to be under-counting deaths than over-counting them… It may take up to a year or more to get final counts on COVID-19 deaths.”

“We also have a number of certificates where it’s really unclear at all what the person died from… For these deaths, we really don’t — aren’t able to make a determination on whether they died from COVID or not.”

4. DOH will likely begin counting “probable” cases of COVID-19 in its infection and death counts.

When asked by Jerry Cornfield of the Everett Herald whether DOH had any plans to begin counting “probable” cases of COVID-19, Cathy Wasserman, a state epidemiologist for non-infectious conditions, said the state was working on implementing new guidance from the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists.

As the Freedom Foundation explained in its report Monday, this guidance does provide for the inclusion of “probable” cases of COVID-19 that have not been confirmed by a lab test……….

See more at GATEWAY PUNDIT — there is some addition lines of evidence there.

Black Market BOOMS With Legal Pot

Published by Papa Giorgio

The black market for pot is growing, despite its legalization in Colorado. CBC News traveled to the state to get a look at the drug war happening there, and the lessons Canada could learn as it moves toward legalizing marijuana.

Democrats Say They Aren’t Grabbing Our Guns… Well…

Published by Papa Giorgio

Leftist Democrats in two cities start grabbing guns, literally.

Michael Medved discusses another lie from the left, “we aren’t trying to grab your guns!” Um, yes you are… literally! Here is an excerpt from the WASHINGTON TIMES:

  • A unanimous vote by village trustees Deerfield, Illinois, this week is primed to turn many legal gun owners into criminals on June 13. Fines of up to $1,000 per day will face citizens this summer if they ignore a ban on “semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns with certain features.”

There is a longer video of some council meeting video from Deerfield, HERE.

UPDATES

This comes by way of the DAILY WIRE:

Second Amendment Foundation Files Suit Against Chicago Suburb For ‘Assault Weapon’ Gun Grab

On Thursday, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit against the Chicago suburb of Deerfield, Illinois for their recent gun ban passed by the Village Board of Trustees.

As reported by The Daily Wire earlier this week, the ban passed Monday night “outlaws any weapon the village leaders deem ‘assault weapons,’ including AR-15s. But the ban also includes ‘semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns with certain features.'”

Those who do not comply with the ordinance — which is set to take effect on June 13 — will face up to $1,000 fines per day.

In a press release announcing the lawsuit, SAF confirmed that the Illinois State Rifle Association and a gun-owning private citizen from the village named Daniel Easterday would be joining them in their legal action.

The suit was filed in the 19th Judicial Circuit Court in Lake County and the plaintiffs are represented by Glen Ellyn attorney David Sigale.

“The lawsuit challenges the village ban under a 2013 amended state statute that declared ‘the regulation of the possession or ownership of assault weapons are exclusive powers and functions of this State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion of that ordinance or regulation, that purports to regulate the possession or ownership of assault weapons in a manner that is inconsistent with this Act, shall be invalid…'” explains the news release.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said the gun ban “flies in the face of state law.”

“While the village is trying to disguise this as an amendment to an existing ordinance, it is, in fact, a new law that entirely bans possession of legally-owned semi-auto firearms, with no exception for guns previously owned, or any provision for self-defense,” Gottlieb said.

“The new ordinance also provides for confiscation and destruction of such firearms and their original capacity magazines,” he continued. “What is particularly outrageous about this new law is that it levies fines of up to $1,000 a day against anyone who refuses to turn in their gun and magazines or move them out of the village by the time the ordinance takes effect in June. THIS CERTAINLY PUTS THE LIE TO CLAIMS BY ANTI-GUNNERS THAT ‘NOBODY IS COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS.'”……..

 

More Unfaithful Electors Defected from Hillary Than Trump (Updated)

Published by Papa Giorgio

GATEWAY PUNDIT did what I wanted to do… and GP notes the following: “…Hillary Clinton lost more electors than any politician in the last 100 years. Not since 1912 has a candidate lost more electors.” The Final Count:

8 Clinton defectors

  • 4 WA (successful)
  • 1 HI (successful)
  • 1 MN (attempted)
  • 1 ME (attempted)
  • 1 CO (attempted)

2 Trump defectors

  • TX (successful)

Gateway Pundit goes on to list past “unfaithful electors” of the past, a great summary of our history in this regard, here’s the list:

The popular belief was that many electorates were going to defect (called, “unfaithful”) from Trump. In the end, more “unfaithful electorates” defected from Hillary Clinton than from Donald Trump. I find this HILARIOUS! Why? Because Trump even came out a winner in this arena as well. As Powerline notes, only two electors were “unfaithful” to Trump. Four ignored Clinton’s win in their states. In fact, there would have been more unfaithful electorates for Hillary if state law didn’t prohibit it, like the “chaos” over state rules in Colorado:

Here are Democrats showing support for this Republic in Wisconsin:

…and Pennsylvania:

US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT notes:

President Barack Obama’s election was supposed to be the kickoff of a new progressive era. The Democrats were in line to win everything, pass anything they wanted through Congress, run the table in most of the states and leave the Republicans holed up in a redoubt somewhere between Idaho and Utah.

It didn’t happen. In fact, it is almost as though the reverse is true. Under Obama, the Democrats lost control of both congressional chambers and more than 800 state legislative seats, with the result that more states will be under unified GOP control than at any time since the 1920s. Not that you’ll hear much about that, as it runs counter to a narrative that reached a fevered pitch during the last election.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was supposed to win the presidency, ensuring the progressive tilt would continue despite opposition from a Republican-led House of Representatives. The U.S. Senate was supposed to flip too, something the pundits started saying right after the last election, because so many Republicans were up in swing states in what was going to be a bad year for the GOP.

The icing on the cake was New York real estate developer Donald Trump, who almost everyone (specifically with the exception of me) wrote and said time and again was not just “unelectable,” but was so unqualified he’d take the rest of the party down with him like the Nixon legacy of Watergate did in 1974.

[….]

The GOP has fissures it will need to address over the next few years. Not everyone in the party is behind what Trump wants to do on every issue. But that’s nothing compared to the way the Democrats, whose national leadership has said it sees little reason to change the party’s overall approach to government or its underlying philosophy, are falling apart. In several states “the party of conscience,” as the Democrats have been casting themselves during a week and a half of earnest lobbying of Trump electors, needed to have “faithless electors” of their own removed from the Electoral College and replaced by Clinton loyalists who would vote as directed….

Was Colorado Rigged Against Trump? (Prager)

Published by Papa Giorgio

…Reince Priebus, the RNC chair, tweeted late Tuesday:

  • “Nomination process known for a year + beyond. It’s the responsibility of the campaigns to understand it. Complaints now? Give us all a break.” (Business Insider)

…Republicans point out that this year’s rules — in which hundreds of delegate candidates elected at the March 1 caucuses run for 34 slots at the state convention — have been known since August.

  • “Trump’s problem is that I think he believed his pure popularity and celebrity would translate into delegates, and it doesn’t,” said Mr. Ciruli. “It has been evident for weeks that Trump simply did not understand the process. He never had anybody here until quite late, whereas Cruz figured this out last year and was obviously on the ground and ready to go.” (Washington Times)

Colorado NOT rigged… dumb!

  • If garnering a larger share of RNC delegates than his percentages would demand leads Trump to conclude that the system is “rigged,” imagine how he’s going to react when he finds out about the electoral college… (National Review)

Denver City Council Leans Towards Totalitarianism ~ Prager

Published by Papa Giorgio

From Fox News:

Some Denver City Council members have stalled consideration of Chick-fil-A’s bid for a 7-year concession to operate a restaurant at the Denver International Airport, citing the company’s stance against same-sex marriage.

According to the Denver Post, Business Development Committee member Paul Lopez believes that having the chicken chain at the airport is a “moral issue on the city.”

Openly gay councilwoman Robin Kniech, while addressing the council Tuesday, said: “We really want to look into the policies and practices of these companies, and just make sure that they conform to ours in the city, the State of Colorado. We have a marriage decision nationally. This is really about policies and it’s about practices.”

During the meeting none of the 10 members in attendance defended Chick-fil-A.

Kniech later told the Denver Post she was worried about a franchise in Denver generating “corporate profits used to fund and fuel discrimination.”….

“Modern Family” ~ Mitch & Cam Eat at a Boycotted Restaurant

Gay Patriot notes the story and comments well [as usual] on the issue facing freedom loving Americans:

…It’s kind of a sour-leftist twofer. They get to revel in that smug exclusion of alternative viewpoints the left calls “tolerance,” and they get to deny people the pleasure of eating a chicken sandwich and waffle fries.

Meanwhile, the Christians who were attacked  by the Lesbian Gay Bullying Totalitarians (LGBT) and nearly lost their business for declining the opportunity to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, in an act of charity and forgiveness, sent cakes to 10 gay rights groups with messages of love.

What do you bet at least 9 of those cakes were tossed in the dumpster amid a string of profanity that would shame a sailor?

Having Your Cake and Forcing Others to Eat It Too (+ Prager)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Originally posted December of 2013)

Diaper Cake

My wife loves to make these for baby-showers she is invited to.

Breitbart has some info on the case for the unfamiliar:

A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday.

The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple “because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage.”

The order says the cake-maker must “cease and desist from discriminating” against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against shop owner Jack Phillips with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission last year on behalf of Charlie Craig, 33, and David Mullins, 29. The couple was married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake to celebrate in Colorado.

…read more…

A Christian baker was found guilty of refusing service to a same-sex wedding and could face a year in jail… it is now becoming legislatively against the law to hold to Judeo-Christian ethics and conscious in America. It will cause some to move to more traditional states (“Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead” ~ G.K. Chesterton), and the solidification of very liberal states. So we will have — truly — a divided America, alla the legislative PC left.

I enjoy, and I truly do, the company (once in a while when GayPatriot does a dinner and I can make it) and the intellectual discussions that happen on his blog. These are men and women who do not put politics above tradition.

And if they challenge tradition… they pause… think… discuss… ask how this might hurt them down the road and hurt the larger society. I may not agree 100% with all their positions, but AT LEAST they realize going headlong into such a big societal change has RADICAL implications (like jail time for not agreeing with a political position versus allowing the free-market to deal with and absorb the choice made).

They also realize that the radical position is not the traditional one, but the radical position is the one who wants to change such a long, natural, religious, historical understanding of the ideal relationship to raise a family in. They take it seriously, and respect the differing views involved. Very unlike the left.

Here is a Christian, conservative, apologist — Frank Turek —  making a point:

“….Imagine a homosexual videographer being forced to video a speech that a conservative makes against homosexual behavior and same sex marriage. Should that homosexual videographer be forced to do so? Of course not! Then why Elane Photography?….”

Now, here is the libertarian, conservative, guy[s] I know who blogs — GayPatriot:

“…it’s a bad law, a law that violates natural human rights to freedom of association and to freely-chosen work. It is not good for gays; picture a gay photographer being required by law to serve the wedding of some social conservative whom he or she despises.”

Which leads me to the latest commentary on the cake issue from Gay Patriot followed by some of the comments:

Another gay couple got miffed that a baker declined to make them a wedding cake. So, instead of seeking out another baker, they whined to the Government because their precious little feelings got hurt. And the Government — recognizing that in a free Constitutional Republic, the delicate feelings of hypersensitive gays are much more important than freedom, free speech, religious liberty, property rights, and free enterprise — has found the baker guilty of hurting gay people’s feelings and is now threatening to jail him.

No one is saying it’s okay to discriminate against gay people, but in this case the cure… heavy-handed jack-booted Fascism … is far worse than the problem.

And to those people are okay with forcing businesses to serve people they don’t care to serve, would it be equally okay for Government to force consumers to use businesses they don’t want to use? The precedent is set with Obamacare. If social justice is more important than freedom, then does it not follow that Government could legitimately force people to spend, say, 50% of their consumer dollars with businesses owned by the Government’s favored minority and victim groups?

…read more…

Here is some of the comments from the above post:

Comment #9:

As a Lesbian activist said recently, and I quote loosely, “it never was about equal rights to marry, it was pushing an agenda”.

Comment #10:

So nice to see everybody figure this out. The tyrants in the GLBT community will not rest until every voice is lifted in praise of their lifestyle- at the end of a gun, if necessary.

Is their any indication that these people have psychological problems. I’ve noticed that gay people, like myself, who are not politically and culturally aggressive seem to be more put-together. It’s the activist types who seem to have the neuroses and disorders. A pathological need for validation and acceptance, which always boils down to a pat on the head to placate the persistent voice in their head calling them on their crap. And it doesn’t matter how they get the “good boy,” or how sincere it is, they’re just happy that they’re getting it. If the baker gives in, this couple will pretend he had a genuine change of heart, and wasn’t coerced into it.

Sometimes I really hate my own kind.

Comment #16:

This makes my blood absolutely boil! Look at all the special accommodations made for Muslims: Muslim Target cashiers don’t have to handle pork products, Muslim female cashier at Wegman’s had a sign at her cash register telling customers if they had alcohol, cigarettes or pork products to go to another line, Muslims getting special breaks so they can pray at work, The airport in Minneapolis getting foot washing stations in the men’s room. The list goes on and on how companies have bent over backwards to accommodate Sharia Law for a minority religion here in the U.S. Yet it’s perfectly legal and necessary to force Christian bakers, photographers and owners of B&B’s to do things that violate their faith. It would be interesting if gay couples who wished to wed, started “asking” Muslim bakers, photographers, B&B owners and mosques to “help” with their pending nuptials. Or how about suing the store because you had to wait in a longer line because the Muslim cashier refused (and with the store’s backing) to check your bacon, smokes and box o’ wine? How about the Muslim man who refused to let you go through his line unless you got rid of the box of tampons and bag of maxi pads? Unbelievable hypocrisy of the left. They ignore “the religion of peace” that actually maims and kills women and gays violently attacks Christians who are just minding their own.

Comment #17:

It would be interesting if gay couples who wished to wed, started “asking” Muslim bakers, photographers, B&B owners and mosques to “help” with their pending nuptials.

Bingo! We have a winner! Hold all calls.

The Muslim Organization for Personal Validation of Kafirs, Dhimmis and مادر جنده could not be reached for comment.

Comment #18:

It would be interesting if gay couples who wished to wed, started “asking” Muslim bakers, photographers, B&B owners and mosques to “help” with their pending nuptials.

Boy, would this ever stir up a hornet’s nest.
The blowback would be gigantic.
Heads would roll.
Literally.

Comment #22:

Less than 48 hours ago, I was refused by three (THREE) Muslim cab drivers in downtown Los Angeles because I was carrying a 12-pack of Sam Adams beer.

No, I wasn’t intoxicated. In point of fact, I haven’t had a drink in over five years.

The three men each told me their religion forbade them from transporting alcohol.

Was I miffed? Hell yes.

Did I sue? Hell no. Rather, I racially profiled and found an infidel willing to accept my fare to Studio City.

Colorado Recall, Successful (2nd Amendment Win)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Via Libertarian Republican:

In the two recall elections conducted yesterday in Colorado: With 96 percent of the votes counted, State Senator Morse trailed by 3 points, and has conceded. And, with 62 percent of the votes counted, State Senator Giron trails by 20 points, and should concede. 

Update! Giron loses by near 60% to 40% margin.

From WaPo, “2 Colo. Democratic lawmakers ousted in gun control recalls promoted by activists, NRA”:

Senate President John Morse lost by just 343 votes Tuesday in a swing district in the Republican stronghold of Colorado Springs but Sen. Angela Giron lost by a bigger margin in a largely blue-collar district that favors Democrats.

This flips the State Senate from 19 Democrats to 16 Republicans, to 18 Republicans to 17 Democrats

Colorado Next State To Chase Church Out of the Adoption Business

Published by Papa Giorgio

Concensus
“Consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually” Abba Eban

Sad. Democrats will roll over — again — a protection enumerated specifically in the Constitution, that is, religious freedom. Breitbart reports:

☕ The Colorado government, now completely run by Democrats, has done an about-face regarding civil unions for gay couples. Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper signed a bill allowing same-sex civil unions roughly a year ago after the same idea went down to defeat in what was then a Republican-led House. But last November Democrats won the House, having control of the Senate already, and the new alignment allowed the bill to be passed. It will go into effect May 1.

Most of the Republicans in the state government held fast against the measure because they wanted religious exemptions granted to those who oppose same-sex unions. Although churches are exempt, businesses and adoption agencies are now subject to the new law.

What this will do is shut down adoption religious agencies, which are the most successful at finding families for children, will have to shut down like in Massachusetts and in Illinois. When they had to shut down in Massachusetts many decried this as hurting the kids, which is what ultimately happens when rights are trampled on. Families are hurt:

“Everyone’s still reeling from the decision,” Marylou Sudders, executive director of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (MSPCC), said yesterday. “Ultimately, the only losers are the kids,” said Maureen Flatley, a Boston adoption consultant and lobbyist. (http://tinyurl.com/a5ypfle)

You see, when the left is in control of this movement, they lay waist. Which is why conservative and libertarian minded persons, gays, and the like would want to try and frame the debate as Civil-Unions that allow religious institution to adopt to whom they wish (even if that is hetero couples only), and not create — like in Canada — the diminishing of religious views as hate crimes. As was pointed out in a review of same-sex marriage’s impact in Canada: “When one understands opposition to same-sex marriage (SSM) as a manifestation of sheer bigotry and hatred, it becomes very hard to tolerate continued dissent (http://tinyurl.com/bx9zjaa).

Conservative gays are allowing the left to control this movement, and they should reject it until calmer heads can influence it. The left is famous for knee-jerk reactionary legislation. And for gays to applaud this passage shows — much like Ann Coulter showed in her town-hall with libertarians, all these young libertarians asked about was weed, and SSM:

…Instead of creating alliances with fiscal conservatives, libertarians would rather tell people that libertarianism is about “pot and gay marriage” in order to garner the attention of the youth. The result of making libertarianism about social issues is that there are therefore people, who claim to be libertarians, that do not understanding the philosophy of libertarianism in the slightest.

[….]

The audience booed Coulter for stating the obvious truths about the travesty of the modern libertarian movement. To demonstrate her point, there was another high-profile guest of an entirely different political persuasion who received applause. When Dennis Kucinich entered the stage, he was applauded. When Kucinich advocated for government regulations in order to save the world from the global warming catastrophe, parts of the audience applauded. When Kucinich mentioned how evil profits were for banks and health-care corporations, parts of the audience applauded…. (http://tinyurl.com/aoj3lwq)

Gay men and women that think they are advancing a right that is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, as opposed to religious freedom, are tearing their rights up bit-by-bit. And it’s sad to see.

The left hates religion, and soon to follow, like in Massachusetts, is an attack on gender. The left tries to legislate control of weather (climate taxes), and now gender (no-distinction, nature or God is of no consequence to their thinking — the ultimate narcissists). You see, religion teaches ideals. And the left and left leaning libertarians do not like ideals. And it is precisely these ideals that the Constitution was written in, and when these ideals are rejected, the Constitution crumbles:

Even if one does not necessarily accept the institutional structure of “organized religion,” the “Judeo-Christian ethic and the personal standards it encourages do not impinge on the quality of life, but enhance it.  They also give one a basic moral template that is not relative,” which is why the legal positivists of the Left are so threatened by the Natural Law aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (Roseville: Prima, 2003), 35.

It is this movement based in a Rousseau’lian worldview that pushes this positivism. I wrote about this in 2006:

…Homosexuals like to argue that, since people are by nature free to choose, the choice of sodomy should be protected, at least as much as any other choice. However, the fact that people are free by nature to make choices does not mean that any choice they make is good or that all choices should be equal before the law. Some people choose to steal and lie. Some abandon their children or their wives or husbands. Some sink into the grip of drugs. Some evade the draft at their country’s need, or abandon their duty in the face of battle. These are bad choices, and when they are made, the rest of us must bear part of the cost. These things are wrong in a constitutional democracy, as much as they are wrong anywhere else.

On the other hand, liberal societies recognize that all sins cannot be, and must not be, punished under the law. A state powerful enough to do that is too powerful to control. That is why we are cautious in a free country, about telling others what to do. That is why Presidents often appeal to us to be upright, moral citizens, but they do not bring charges against us unless we break the law.

Still, we must not forget that democracies have the greatest in the practice of virtue by citizens, because in democracy the citizens themselves are the rulers. So it is that George Washington, one of the greatest moral examples in history, said in his First Inaugural Address: “There is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness…”

A liberal society might, then, find it prudent to ignore homosexuality. It might well deem it unwise to peer into private bedrooms. However, this is not the issue before us. Today the demand is that homosexuality be endorsed and promoted with the full power of the law. This would require us to abandon the standard of nature, the one standard that can teach us the difference between freedom and slavery, between right and wrong.

Once we abandon the standard of nature, what is to forbid us from resorting to any violation of nature that we please? Why should we not return to slavery, if we find it convenient? Or the practice of incest or adultery or cannibalism? Without an understanding that there is a higher law that limits human will – whether divine law or the “law of Nature or Nature’s God” which we can grasp through our reason – there is no basis to prohibit any activity. Anything becomes possible (which is why some [me included] refer to murder and homosexuality in the same stroke of the pen/keyboard, this analogy is now detailed in a more exhaustive manner above).

In fact, the rights sought by homosexual activists are not natural or constitutional rights (for the best chapter on this subject – why homosexuals should be fighting to keep the traditional definition of family – I suggest the book Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly in Mid-Air). They are the special rights granted ethnic minorities by affirmative action policies. These special rights would force businesses, schools, and virtually every institution in the land, public and private, to open their doors to homosexuals, and allow lawsuits to be brought against those that refuse….

One way this liberal narcissism rears its head is that no longer are we trying to find a family for the child through adoption… the child is the tool to make a gay-couple feel like a family.  And to do this they must chase out of the business the most successful at finding families for the children. Sad.