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.


(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-t-schneiderman/fighting-back-against-hob_b_5597240.html

(2) http://smallbusiness.chron.com/corporation-considered-artificial-person-under-law-57912.html



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. 

(1)
http://wivb.com/2014/07/12/womens-rights-advocates-protest-hobby-lobby-birth-control-decision/  
(2)
http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons_2.htm

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 Reason.com,

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.





http://nws.mx/1k5n0dg



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.

http://www.complex.com/sports/2014/02/crazy-nba-sex-scandals/

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.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-donald-sterling-flap-is-also-disturbing-for-what-it-says-about-sex/2014/04/29/881243f2-cfd4-11e3-a6b1-45c4dffb85a6_story.html

http://www.humanevents.com/2014/04/30/a-man-of-sterling-character/

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?








http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/sri/SNY%20March%202014%20Poll%20Release%20--%20FINAL.pdf
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/03/27/only-5-3-percent-of-unborn-babies-diagnosed-with-down-syndrome-escape-abortion/

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Credit where credit's due

World Vision has rescinded its decision to accept homosexual marriage. That they did so in a contrite manner speaks volumes. That they did so while maintaining a compassionate stance toward those practicing homosexuality speaks volumes as well.

Recognizing that Christ's love excludes no one while it cannot accept the sin of anyone is a biblical view that informs their decision.

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

A Lack of Vision from World Vision


As the Hollywood American Indian Stereotype would say, World Vision's U.S. President Richard Stearns "speaks with a forked tongue."

From one side of his mouth, Stearns insists
"It's easy to read a lot more into this decision than is really there," he said. "This is not an endorsement of same-sex marriage. We have decided we are not going to get into that debate. Nor is this a rejection of traditional marriage, which we affirm and support."

From the other side he says
"Changing the employee conduct policy to allow someone in a same-sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ to work for us makes our policy more consistent with our practice on other divisive issues," he said. "It also allows us to treat all of our employees the same way: abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage."

How does this decision "affirm and support" traditional marriage? By making this decision, what World Vision has done is exactly what Stearns claims not to have done: They have inserted themselves into the debate.

Stearns goes on to say that World Vision is simply "deferring to the authority of churches and denominations on theological issues."So World Vision is an organization that does Christian work, that claims to adhere to Christian principles, but those principles are in a fluid state, dependent upon the views of denominations?

The Bible says sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sin. If World Vision says it adheres to the biblical definition of marriage, then this decision is saying to the world that homosexual sex is the only sex acceptable outside of marriage.

World Vision says it is deferring to denominations. Where World Vision should be deferring to is biblical authority.





http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/world-vision-why-hiring-gay-christians-same-sex-marriage.html

Monday, March 24, 2014

Horror wrapped in compassion


Much lip service is paid to women by those who support abortion on demand. Their position, they say, is a compassionate and humane one. Yet all too often women are hurt, or allowed to be potentially put in harm's way thanks to the efforts of these same compassionate, humane people.

So many attempts to have abortion mills regulated like other medical practices have been opposed and thwarted by Abortion supporters that it seems ridiculous at this point to list them. But there are a couple of things that haven't been addressed sufficiently.

First, the so-called War on Women. By liberal standards, the very thought of prohibiting any kind of abortion is an attack on women. Since many conservative Republicans do not condone late term abortions, or abortions for anything other than to save the life of the mother (excuse the term,) they are de-facto at war with women. In war there are casualties, and in the abortion arena there plenty of female casualties.

In an article from The Telegraph dated March 24th, 2014, the head of BPAS, the organization that conducts over a quarter of the abortions committed in the U.K. every year,Ann Fuerdi tells an interviewer that aborting a child because you want a boy instead of the girl in your womb is fine. Its no different, she says, than being permitted to abort in the case of rape or incest. Current British law backs her up, I'm afraid. And the practice of eliminating girls before birth in India and China is no secret. Are these practices not a war on women? Are such acts compassionate or humane?


Second, if we do not recognize the pre born infant as a human being then it must be nothing more than lifeless tissue. What happens to that tissue? British government officials were shocked to discover recently that a great deal of these remains were incinerated for energy creation at hospital facilities. Sound humane?

Again, from The Telegraph,

The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.
Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.
If I were to read about such practices in a dystopian science fiction novel set in a post apocalyptic future I wouldn't be as surprised. But this is happening now, in a civilized society. From a search query, Ask.com responded with "all tissue is disposed of in a sensitive way."

But if the remains are nothing more than tissue, what is all the fuss about? Why are officials from the Department of Health going on record as calling the practice abhorrent, calling for an immediate halt to such practices?

Britain's Channel Four says over 15,000 were incinerated at 27 National Health Service hospitals over the past two years. I don't need to read the novel. I'm living in a dystopian world now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10316715/Women-are-legally-free-to-abort-a-baby-because-of-its-sex-says-abortion-charity-head.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10717566/Aborted-babies-incinerated-to-heat-UK-hospitals.html







Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Show me your commitment to Church Doctrine



In the classic Humphrey Bogart Film, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Bogart is confronted by men on horseback who claim to be Mexican officers.

     “If you’re Federales, where are your badges?” He asks.

The reply is the memorable line, 

     “Badges? We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!”

A few months ago, Rev. Frank Schaefer, a Methodist minister in Pennsylvania was defrocked by his denomination for officiating at a wedding of two homosexuals. His removal from the teaching ministry followed proscribed rules and guidelines set forth by his denomination for violating church doctrine and practice, doctrine which he no doubt pledged to adhere to as an ordained official of the Methodist church. His removal instigated volleys of condemnation from liberals within and without the church body.

The same thing was about to happen in the New York City area, when Rev. Thomas Ogletree officiated at such a ceremony. Same rules, same doctrine-Different outcome.*

Bishop Martin McLee declined to prosecute. Bishop Peggy Johnson from the Philadelphia area, said she was filled with "jubilation" over the decision.

     “If you’re the church authorities, show me your commitment to church doctrine.”

     “Doctrine? We don’t need no stinkin’ doctrine!”

The Methodist Church risks schism over the issue. There area many within the denomination who were outraged by the Pennsylvania ouster. There were many outraged over the Bishop’s refusal to adhere to Church ordnances and doctrine.

Other trials are pending. Several Ministers have refused to stop violating the 40 year old rules set forth in the Methodist Book of Discipline.

Rev. Steve Heiss (Binghamton, NY) refuses to submit to church discipline as he waits for his own trial. Following the decision to defrock Frank Schaefer, he told Religion News Service, 

     “The ambiguity of it was so awful and so painful.”

Heiss is right, though not for the reason I suspect he says this. The ambiguity is on the part of the denomination’s willingness to stand its ground on the biblical principals originally set forth as their standards of practice. At the heart of this is doctrine. In particular, the doctrine of inerrancy.

R. Dale Tedder, Jr. writing for the Florida Confessing Association regarding United Methodist Authority and the Question of Inerrancy wrote,



“Scripture is ultimately authoritative because it is inerrant. Authority has to do with the right to impose obligations. God, as the "author" of the universe, has the right to impose any obligation he desires. Any ultimate authority less than God is an idol. However, humanity could not know God and what he required were he to have remained silent. However, the Christian faith has always believed that God has revealed himself to his creation. To say that God has revealed himself to his creation is to confess that his revelation was successfully given and received. Though the recipients of such a revelation are by no means inerrant, surely the Revealer is. Therefore, United Methodism must claim that Scripture alone is the Church's final authority. To affirm this is to do more than declare allegiance to an amorphous doctrine of inspiration. Instead, the authority of Scripture can only be truly sustained if is grounded in the sovereign hand of the Lord who continues to exercise his authority over his Church through his inerrant Word.”



There really should be no ambiguity here. But the fact that Tedder felt it necessary to write in support of scriptural authority indicates that there is within the Methodist ranks.


*12 Mar 2014 The Philadelphia Inquirer
By Tricia L. Nadolny INQUIRER STAFF WRITER tnadolny@phillynews.com 610-313-8205 TriciaNadolny
No trial for cleric who led gay wedding Bishop overseeing Methodists in N.Y.C. area also suspends any future actions.


Friday, March 7, 2014

Living in a Millennial Age

I suppose it’s a question of which came first, the chicken or the egg?

A recent Pew Research paper on Social and Demographic Trends suggests that Millennials, those people ranging from 18 to 33 years of age, follow along with the norms portrayed in Hollywood and television.
They are less likely than earlier generations to be affiliated with a particular church, less likely to be married, more often than not committed to a political party and more liberal than their elders. In their liberality they have more children out of wedlock, and are more accepting of homosexual marriages.

The argument can be made of course, that entertainment media simply reflects societal norms, mimicking current lifestyles to generate the most interest for ticket sales and cable subscriptions.

I suspect that it’s a bit of both, and more the former than the latter.

The research shows declining percentages from generation to generation in marriage and church affiliation. I remember a well known movie critic, writing back in the 1980s of a party he attended in Hollywood. The topic of conversation at the party came to the portrayal of ministers in film. The critic asked why they were being portrayed as buffoons and hypocrites. An actress turned to him and said “Aren’t they all like that?”
When asked if she had ever met any, she laughed and said no. The critic wrote that Hollywood exists in a vacuum, totally apart from the real world. But isolated from reality or not, entertainers are not shy when it comes professing their feelings in regards to social and political issues. And the soap box afforded them by their lofty status as icons gives weight to their words that many academics would give their right arm for.

The Pew report tellingly noted that Millennials are locked into a self created digital network,  that supplies them with the news that informs their world. While this may seem liberating, its also constricting. The report says that Millennials place less trust in government that previous generations. 


Frederick the Great said public schools would control the masses for the state. Better add the internet and social networking to that list.