Friday, July 18, 2014

A Corporation is a Person, but Only When the Left Says So

Along with most liberals, New York State Attorney General A. G. Schneiderman is upset over the United States Supreme Court's decision in Burwell V. Hobby Lobby. In a Op-Ed posted July 17th, 2014, in the Huffington Post, he wrote,

The Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision was both factually and legally flawed. It accepted false assertions about the science of how contraception works, and it expanded the absurd legal principle that corporations are people by essentially finding that corporations can hold religious beliefs. (1)

First of all, the science of contraception works in favor of the decision, in that only those four contraceptives that allow insemination and then deny continued life were impacted.

Secondly, were it not for what he calls the absurd legal principle that corporations are people they could not be sued as people, a practice fondly accepted and practiced by the left.

Shelly Morgan, Demand Media, notes

Corporations can sue and be sued under the law, just like people. The legal fiction that corporations are people allows the corporation to assert some basic 14th Amendment rights in court, including the right to due process and the right to equal protection. Whole bodies of law, such as environmental regulations, can be applied to corporations precisely because these business entities are treated like people in courts of law.(2)

Schneiderman's missive is more political homily than anything else. It reads like a manifesto on his feelings on gender related issues.

Like Attorney Generals before him, Schneiderman wields the Op-Ed/ Press Release like a flag, calling attention to himself as he seeks to gain favor with the masses. And, like so many liberals before him, he ignores the benefits of corporate personhood when it benefits him, and embraces it when it suits his pet causes.



Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Twenty Minus Four Still Leaves Sixteen

Ashley Markel, in Western New York, recently organized a protest against the United States Supreme Court decision in Burwell V. Hobby Lobby.

By a vote of 5-4 the court decided that privately held, for-profit companies are exempt from a provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires businesses to cover abortifacients, drugs that cause abortions.
Ms. Markel told WIVB News,

“It’s a step backward. We’re all here to stand up for women’s rights and equality.” (1)

But lets be clear about this ruling.

The Hobby Lobby ruling only invalidates four out of the twenty contraceptives mandated by the ACA. That leaves sixteen other options on the table covered for their employees.

According to WIVB News,

Markel and others worry that the Supreme Court’s decision may be interpreted more broadly than that by other corporations, who may choose not to cover “regular” forms of birth control, because of it.”

I’d say that if she is correct, the outcome will fall into the category of unintended consequences.

There is a seventeenth choice, though not a popular one for obvious reasons.

Abstinence could be considered a "regular" form of birth control. Its free and effective. The primary reasons given for considering an abortion are of a self interest nature. (2) If the desire to maintain a standard of living, continue a course of education, or continue a career path outweighed the desire to have sexual relations, abstinence would be a good choice. 


Thursday, May 29, 2014

Operation Choke Point May Lead to Stranglehold on Constitutional Rights for Us All

They say politics makes for strange bedfellows. I think that may be no truer than in the Department of Justice’s Operation Choke Point.

While a trivial thing like the Constitutional right to free speech prevents the government from shutting down the burgeoning porn industry, some federal officials have taken it upon themselves to find a work around.

In Conjunction with the FDIC and others, the DOJ has been pressuring banks to close the accounts of those in the porn industry. Here’s where the bedfellows are going to get strange.

While I would like to see an end to the relentless barrage of pornography that inundates today’s media and the internet, I cannot help but stand in opposition to Operation Choke Point.

The porn industry is the tip of the iceberg. So far businesses targeted have included payday lenders, ammunition sales, dating services, and online gaming sites.

Here’s the kicker. Who decides what gets targeted, and who’s next on the hit list?

According to Elizabeth Nolan Brown, writing for,

In a March 2013 hearing before a Senate Banking subcommittee, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) pointed out the obvious: that DOJ has "no statutory authority" to be doing this. But why bother with statutory authority when you can just secretly strong-arm highly regulated businesses into doing what you want?

Call me paranoid, but if you thought forcing a photographer to cover a gay wedding was bad, I think if this isn’t stopped we’re at the top of a very slippery slope.

Friday, May 23, 2014

Hey VA, We've been fighting wars. Didn't you get the memo?

This Memorial Day weekend, millions of people will take time off from work. 
This Memorial Day Weekend, families will travel to beaches and resorts to get away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life, happy to get a break.
This Memorial Day weekend, Elected officials will march in parades, pontificate on the virtues of of our fallen heroes, and smile for the cameras.
This Memorial Day weekend, scores of Veterans continue to wait for services and benefits earned.
A recent report notes that hundreds of jobs remain unfilled at the VA, an agency that claims it can’t handle the backlog. How can jobs go unfilled while America’s Veterans wait for assistance? This kind of thing doesn’t happen overnight.
Other than the VA, was anyone else surprised that veterans would be asking for their well earned benefits? I’m sure they must have read the reports of wars in the middle east over the past few years. They must have been told to expect our soldiers sailors and Marines to be stopping by for help.
When you see someone in the military this weekend, ignore the sale ads, walk away from the picnic table, and take a moment to shake their hand and say thanks.
To my family, friends, and listeners who chose to serve their nation, God bless you.

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Sterling's War on Women Largely Ignored

Donald Sterling’s racist rant is the hit of the twitterverse. Newspapers around the globe are vilifying this disgusting old man whose only charm is in his wallet. But there’s a back story to this man’s character that has been mostly ignored in the public vituperate acrimony.

Sterling has consistently treated women with disdain, using them as toys for his excessive gratification. His May-December romance/trysting is on stage publically. In published reports, he buys women, uses women, discards women.

In the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus writes that when Sterling’s current girlfriend offered to remove blacks from her Instagram account, he said,

“I don’t want to change. If my girl can’t do what I want, I don’t want the girl,” Sterling announces. “I’ll find a girl that will do what I want.”
He knows: Market forces operate in his favor. The supply of beautiful young women exceeds the demand from wealthy trolls.

In a letter written by Ann Coulter for Human Events, she says she listened to eight hours of news commentary before anyone mentioned he has a wife.

“Today, a team owner can sit with his mistress at games, give her millions of dollars in gifts, precipitate a lawsuit from the old coot’s wife demanding return of their community property — and none of that even merits a mention in the first 14 paragraphs of the scandal stories about him.”

So why no boycotts of Sterling’s behavior towards women? Where was the public outcry over his demeaning treatment of women he paid for, let alone his wife?

The answer is what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

The NBA is famous for more than dribbling a basketball on a hardwood court. According to Wikipedia, Wilt Chamberlain’s lawyer once said,

"Some people collect stamps, Wilt collected women.”

While the NBA is not alone in its treatment of women as chattel, here’s a link to a host of allegations.

Reports abound regarding sex trafficking and slavery in this civilized world of ours.

The U.S. Dept of State has a page for the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. On it is this quote:

"It ought to concern every person, because it is a debasement of our common humanity. It ought to concern every community, because it tears at our social fabric. It ought to concern every business, because it distorts markets. It ought to concern every nation, because it endangers public health and fuels violence and organized crime. I’m talking about the injustice, the outrage, of human trafficking, which must be called by its true name -- modern slavery."
– President Barack Obama
I'm sure the President is as appalled as most of us at the statements made by Donald Sterling regarding blacks. But I wish someone had told him about his treatment off women as well. 

Wikipedia defines Human Trafficking as
"the trade in humans, most commonly for the purpose of sexual slavery, forced labor or commercial sexual exploitation for the trafficker or others."

A culture of sexual conquest exists that encourages and fuels trafficking. Its not just endemic to the NBA. Its visible in the NBA because the NBA is entertainment. Its also why a blind eye has been turned to Sterling's treatment of his wife and others over the years. Bringing his sexual escapades to light would not only cook Sterling's goose, but the entertainment gander as well.
Near the end of her letter, Coulter points out,

“In 1947, it was a scandal when Leo Durocher stole a married woman from her husband — and promptly married her, even living apart pending a final divorce decree. Today, a married team owner can bring his prostitutes to games and give detailed accounts of their copulations and it’s not even an issue.”

Friday, April 18, 2014

Fear and Loving in the Public Venue

In Ohio, a village Mayor is under fire from a Wisconsin based atheist group for hanging two crosses on the side of the village’s municipal building. 
In Iowa, the Governor declared July 14th of 2014 to be a day of fasting and prayer. Another secular atheist group declares Iowa is now a theocracy, according to their webpage, euphemistically named Liberty Voice.
The Clemson Tigers football coach appointed a team chaplain, allowing him to lead lessons on being baptized in the school’s athletic building. The Freedom From Religion Foundation is in a tizzy. As if they didn’t have enough on their plates trying to remove In God we Trust from our coins.

Why all the hatred and animosity? I have one word for you. FEAR.

Believers in Christ see love on the cross. Those in darkness, those who shun the light, fear the power of the resurrection.

The Gospel of John tells us,
And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
But Colossians 1:13 reminds us,
He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love

Pray that those suffering from that fear would be open to Christ’s redemption.

Friday, March 28, 2014

A Double Standard of Convenience

A Sienna College Poll taken in March taken March 17th shows the vast majority of New Yorkers oppose the New York Dream Act. Even so, Democrats in Albany nearly passed the legislation, and their plan now is to include it in the next budget.

Unsurprisingly, Governor Cuomo’s ratings have taken a dive, as did his push to use tax payer money to fund higher education for illegals. I’d like to see the Governor, along with those who want to pay for these educations to put their own money where there mouths are. Set up a voluntary fund.

It’s sad to see that people have moved here illegally, knowingly illegally, and have raised children here, hoping no one would get caught. Its upsetting to see people move here, knowingly illegally, and then demanding legal residents help them or their children.

From the left, the cry goes up, “You can’t make innocent children suffer for the sins of their parent or parents!” Ah, but we do. Everyday. And we make excuses for it.
“It was incest.”
“It was rape.”
“It was not planned.”
“It will hurt my career.”
In the case of the first two I mentioned, one parent is a criminal. And whether or not he is punished has nothing to do with his offspring.

Why the double standard? Many of the same people cry out, “How can you deny someone an abortion?” Where are the shouts from the left for the well being of the legal innocent child?
If Dream Acts are based on human rights, why are those same human rights denied to boys and girls whose only crime is to be an inconvenience?

Granted, there are rare incidences in which a pregnant woman’s life is threatened by continuing a pregnancy. I can’t begin to imagine how painful a situation that must be. But beyond those cases, it becomes a matter of convenience.

“I don’t want to suffer by carrying a child nine months for what a criminal did to me.”
What system of ethics informs us that its better to end the life of another in order to shorten the period of our own suffering? Does punishing the child make what happened any more palatable? 
“We just couldn’t handle a child with a deformity/severe autism/Down Syndrome.”   Less than 6% of children with forms of Down Syndrome make it beyond the womb. 
“A child right now would damage my career.” 
“We wanted a boy this time.” 
So what do we do for the children of illegal immigrants? Do we cast them aside, deport them to a country they've likely never been to? Perhaps the best answer is to grant them citizenship, and make sure no one else suffers as they have by enforcing our borders.

And for children in the womb? Do we continue to cast them aside, or do we grant them citizenship as well?