The New King George

We Americans are one lawyer away from losing our right to practice our religion.

One more liberal Supreme Court Justice would mean that liberal extremists would be able to use the full power of the government to force people of faith to offer sacrifices at the altars of the gods of liberalism -- abortion, contraception, gay marriage, etc.

Liberal Supreme Court judges have said that employers have no religious freedom. If an employee wants something, then the employer must provide it despite the employer’s religious beliefs. No woman needs contraceptives or to be sterilized. Those are not part of providing a “living wage” or even of providing necessary, as opposed to optional, healthcare. 

If you want to go fishing you can’t expect your company to provide you with a boat. Instead, you take part of your salary and buy a boat. The same applies if you want a bigger TV or to go to a football game. But somehow, if someone wants to enjoy themselves by having sex, liberals believe that their employer has to provide them with contraceptives. 

No one has died from being celibate; contraception is not necessary healthcare.

The coercive logic behind the liberal Justices' position becomes obvious when we realize that the same Justices have no problem with small companies not having to offer health insurance at all. How can it be unconstitutional for a large company to not provide free birth control when it’s constitutional for a small company to not provide insurance if you get cancer? Are we to believe that our rights are based on the size of the company we work for?

Furthermore, if the liberal justices can understand that workers can freely choose to either work for or avoid working for small companies based on the benefit package those companies offer why can’t they understand that if a worker really values free contraceptives, a $9/month benefit, above all else, that worker can choose to work for a company that provides free contraceptives?

In their stampede to curtail inconvenient religious liberties in America, where “inconvenience” is defined as being out of step with liberal thinking, the liberal judges have “forgotten” some of their core beliefs -- diversity and tolerance.

According to four Supreme Court justices, we can’t have a diversity of business benefit packages and we can’t tolerate any business that does not toe the liberal line on abortion. 

Those “liberal” judges say America can have businesses that vary on pretty much every other aspect of the compensation packages they offer for no reason other than the whims of the owners, but we can’t tolerate businesses that don’t want to pay for abortifacient chemicals.

The rejection of true religious liberty by the four liberal Justices is the latest indication of the tyrannical roots of modern liberalism. Modern liberals believe that the full power of the state can, and should, be used to impose the practices liberals’ support on all people.

Liberals base their position on a rejection of individual liberty if it conflicts with societal -- read liberal -- norms. We see this when liberals reject the concept that the people have inalienable rights.

While liberals deny that they reject the concept of individual rights, from a phenomenological perspective, liberals demonstrate their true beliefs by their continual attacks on individual liberty -- unless the liberty, such as burning a flag, is congruent with liberal dogma -- as evidenced by their continual attacks on the First Amendment.

The HHS mandate in ObamaCare is a clear attack on the rights of people to not directly fund or support practices that contradict their religious beliefs in direct contradiction of the First Amendment.

Liberals in the Senate are trying to repeal the First Amendment by giving Congress the right to control all spending on informing the voters how candidates for office stand on the issues. Senate liberals want to silence all voices that disagree with them by using the power of government, thereby abrogating the inalienable right of free speech on political matters which all Americans currently enjoy based on the Constitution.

Liberals stood strong for the rights of anti-war protesters to demonstrate, and even blockade, Army recruitment centers, yet they also have eagerly imposed bubbles of silence around abortion mills where it is a crime to offer a pamphlet to a woman. These zones are not directed at pro-abortion speech, only at those who wish to end the barbaric practice of killing inconvenient children. Here liberals wish to make the First Amendment content specific; only liberal thought is protected while all others are silenced.

Liberals constantly support the “fairness” doctrine that violates the First Amendment by demanding that certain media outlets, only those who disagree with liberals, speak as much in support of liberal beliefs as they do in support of conservative beliefs no matter what the people who run the media sites believe.

Another way to see the tyrannical core of modern liberalism and their rejection of individual rights is to look at how liberals react to liberal politicians' rejection of the rule of law.

Whether it’s Jerry Brown refusing to defend Prop 8, thereby disenfranchising the majority of California voters, or Obama changing and creating laws with his magical pen, liberals who nearly died of anguish when Bush did something they thought was “imperial” are shouting out that liberal politicians who reject laws they don’t like are heroes.

In America today, we face a new imperial threat. While King George is long gone, a new set of oppressors that believe, as George did, in the top-down authority of the government and the lack of rights of individuals has grown so strong as to threaten the very basis of liberty in America.

America is no longer split between two parties that offer different solutions to problems like poverty and foreign policy but between two parties that differ on the fundamental view of what rights Americans have.

Fortunately, few Americans agree with liberals; we know this because liberals are always forced to lie about what their real agenda is. That’s why abortion is a “choice”, the HHS mandate is about women’s health, and the repeal of the First Amendment is about evil corporations.

But with far too many Americans being intentionally kept ignorant by the MSM and the liberal teachers unions it is the responsibility of conservatives to reach out to our low information friends and relatives to make them aware of the threats to their rights.

If we fail in that then we may be leaving a heritage of oppression and servitude to our children rather than the beacon of hope and freedom that we received from our parents.

We Americans are one lawyer away from losing our right to practice our religion.

One more liberal Supreme Court Justice would mean that liberal extremists would be able to use the full power of the government to force people of faith to offer sacrifices at the altars of the gods of liberalism -- abortion, contraception, gay marriage, etc.

Liberal Supreme Court judges have said that employers have no religious freedom. If an employee wants something, then the employer must provide it despite the employer’s religious beliefs. No woman needs contraceptives or to be sterilized. Those are not part of providing a “living wage” or even of providing necessary, as opposed to optional, healthcare. 

If you want to go fishing you can’t expect your company to provide you with a boat. Instead, you take part of your salary and buy a boat. The same applies if you want a bigger TV or to go to a football game. But somehow, if someone wants to enjoy themselves by having sex, liberals believe that their employer has to provide them with contraceptives. 

No one has died from being celibate; contraception is not necessary healthcare.

The coercive logic behind the liberal Justices' position becomes obvious when we realize that the same Justices have no problem with small companies not having to offer health insurance at all. How can it be unconstitutional for a large company to not provide free birth control when it’s constitutional for a small company to not provide insurance if you get cancer? Are we to believe that our rights are based on the size of the company we work for?

Furthermore, if the liberal justices can understand that workers can freely choose to either work for or avoid working for small companies based on the benefit package those companies offer why can’t they understand that if a worker really values free contraceptives, a $9/month benefit, above all else, that worker can choose to work for a company that provides free contraceptives?

In their stampede to curtail inconvenient religious liberties in America, where “inconvenience” is defined as being out of step with liberal thinking, the liberal judges have “forgotten” some of their core beliefs -- diversity and tolerance.

According to four Supreme Court justices, we can’t have a diversity of business benefit packages and we can’t tolerate any business that does not toe the liberal line on abortion. 

Those “liberal” judges say America can have businesses that vary on pretty much every other aspect of the compensation packages they offer for no reason other than the whims of the owners, but we can’t tolerate businesses that don’t want to pay for abortifacient chemicals.

The rejection of true religious liberty by the four liberal Justices is the latest indication of the tyrannical roots of modern liberalism. Modern liberals believe that the full power of the state can, and should, be used to impose the practices liberals’ support on all people.

Liberals base their position on a rejection of individual liberty if it conflicts with societal -- read liberal -- norms. We see this when liberals reject the concept that the people have inalienable rights.

While liberals deny that they reject the concept of individual rights, from a phenomenological perspective, liberals demonstrate their true beliefs by their continual attacks on individual liberty -- unless the liberty, such as burning a flag, is congruent with liberal dogma -- as evidenced by their continual attacks on the First Amendment.

The HHS mandate in ObamaCare is a clear attack on the rights of people to not directly fund or support practices that contradict their religious beliefs in direct contradiction of the First Amendment.

Liberals in the Senate are trying to repeal the First Amendment by giving Congress the right to control all spending on informing the voters how candidates for office stand on the issues. Senate liberals want to silence all voices that disagree with them by using the power of government, thereby abrogating the inalienable right of free speech on political matters which all Americans currently enjoy based on the Constitution.

Liberals stood strong for the rights of anti-war protesters to demonstrate, and even blockade, Army recruitment centers, yet they also have eagerly imposed bubbles of silence around abortion mills where it is a crime to offer a pamphlet to a woman. These zones are not directed at pro-abortion speech, only at those who wish to end the barbaric practice of killing inconvenient children. Here liberals wish to make the First Amendment content specific; only liberal thought is protected while all others are silenced.

Liberals constantly support the “fairness” doctrine that violates the First Amendment by demanding that certain media outlets, only those who disagree with liberals, speak as much in support of liberal beliefs as they do in support of conservative beliefs no matter what the people who run the media sites believe.

Another way to see the tyrannical core of modern liberalism and their rejection of individual rights is to look at how liberals react to liberal politicians' rejection of the rule of law.

Whether it’s Jerry Brown refusing to defend Prop 8, thereby disenfranchising the majority of California voters, or Obama changing and creating laws with his magical pen, liberals who nearly died of anguish when Bush did something they thought was “imperial” are shouting out that liberal politicians who reject laws they don’t like are heroes.

In America today, we face a new imperial threat. While King George is long gone, a new set of oppressors that believe, as George did, in the top-down authority of the government and the lack of rights of individuals has grown so strong as to threaten the very basis of liberty in America.

America is no longer split between two parties that offer different solutions to problems like poverty and foreign policy but between two parties that differ on the fundamental view of what rights Americans have.

Fortunately, few Americans agree with liberals; we know this because liberals are always forced to lie about what their real agenda is. That’s why abortion is a “choice”, the HHS mandate is about women’s health, and the repeal of the First Amendment is about evil corporations.

But with far too many Americans being intentionally kept ignorant by the MSM and the liberal teachers unions it is the responsibility of conservatives to reach out to our low information friends and relatives to make them aware of the threats to their rights.

If we fail in that then we may be leaving a heritage of oppression and servitude to our children rather than the beacon of hope and freedom that we received from our parents.