Hillary 2016 Cartoon

Death knell for freedom? US moving from 'inclusion' to totalitarianism

Bake me a cake, or go to jail!
Sadly, that is the new message from “inclusive” America. If you don’t want to cater, photograph, preside over, sell pizza at, sell flowers to or otherwise participate in a gay wedding, you will be punished. If you don’t want your business to pay for a kind of birth control that you consider murder, you will pay fines until your business is bankrupt.
Personally, I think both birth control and homosexuality are just fine, and gay marriage is as valid as straight marriage. But forcing everyone to act as if they think that way is just wrong. We have moved from “inclusion” to totalitarianism.

Personally, I think both birth control and homosexuality are just fine, and gay marriage is as valid as straight marriage. But forcing everyone to act as if they think that way is just wrong.

The list of people you must treat carefully keeps getting longer. Protected classes now include sex, race, age, disability, nationality, citizenship status, pregnancy, family status and more. I’m in two of those groups. You better treat me well!
Why force someone who disapproves of your actions to bake you a cake? Lots of other bakers would love the business. This debate has moved from inclusion to demanding that everyone adopt your values.
In a free country, bigots should have the right to be bigots. Americans should also have freedom of association.
American lawyers talk about special protection for religious freedom, and in the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court said you could escape onerous parts of ObamaCare by paying lawyers a fortune and convincing judges that you are a closely held corporation with religious objections. But why must you be religious to practice what you believe? This should be about individual freedom.
Of course, government must not discriminate. The worst of American racism and homophobia -- slavery, segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, anti-sodomy laws, etc. -- was government-enforced discrimination. That was wrong, and it was right for the federal government to intervene.
But private actions are different. If I start a business with my own money, I ought to be allowed to serve only libertarians, people who wear blue shirts, whatever. It’s my business!
My customers have choices. If I am racist or anti-gay, the free market will punish me. Enough people would boycott my business that I would probably lose money quickly.
It would actually be useful to see which businesses refuse to serve one group or another.
Tolerance is revealed by how people behave when they are free. American law fosters the illusion that everyone is unbiased, while their real feelings remain hidden, making them harder to boycott, shame or debate.
Punishment from the market is enough. The heavy hand of law is not needed here.
However, given America’s history, I accept that there are a few exceptions. In the South, people banned from a lunch counter had few other choices. The Civil Rights Act’s intrusion into private behavior was probably necessary to counter the damage done by Jim Crow laws.
But today such coercion is no longer needed. Even in the difficult days of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, business began to bring together whites and blacks who might not always have liked each other but who wanted the best deals. It took several years for racists to get Jim Crow passed so they could put a stop to that erosion of the old racist ways. Government helped keep racism going for several more decades.
Individuals should be allowed to discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I favor people over others when I choose my friends, jobs, hobbies, clubs, religion, etc. So do you.
Elizabeth Taylor married nine times. Had she married again, should the EEOC have ordered her to marry someone from an ethnic minority?
A homophobic baker shouldn’t stop a same-sex couple from getting married. Likewise, a gay couple shouldn’t force a baker to make them a wedding cake. No one should ever force anyone to bake them a cake.

Clinton campaign sends memo to supporters ahead of 2016 announcement

Just plows ahead like a old mule with blinders on.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign team circulated a memo to her supporters Saturday that laid out guiding principles, a day before she is expected to kick off her long-anticipated 2016 presidential campaign.
The memo, obtained by Fox News, is called “We Are Hillary For America.” The memo explains the principles and purposes behind the Clinton campaign, saying the campaign’s aim is “to give every family, every small business, and every American a path to lasting prosperity by electing Hillary Clinton the next President of the United States.”
“This campaign is not about Hillary Clinton and not about us -- it’s about the everyday Americans who are trying to build a better life for themselves and their families,” the memo says
The memo concludes with a series of guiding principles that include:
"We are disciplined: driven every day by strategy, not tactics or one offs. We know there will be tough days, but we will bounce back and get back to work. We take risks, always measuring with empirical data to establish best practices."
"We are humble: we take nothing for granted, we are never afraid to lose, we always out-compete and fight for every vote we can win. We know this campaign will be won on the ground, in states."
"We are responsible: we always remember and appreciate the generosity of millions of people who invest their time and resources in Hillary Clinton and in us."
It ends by telling recipients: “We are guided by Hillary’s bedrock values of hard work, service, fairness, and faith in the American Dream."
The former secretary of state is expected to first reveal her decision to voters via social media on Sunday. Sources told Fox News that, as has been widely expected, Clinton will then head to key early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire next week.
Clinton would be the first Democratic candidate to confirm a run for the White House, and she is considered the clear frontrunner to win the party’s nomination. If she were to win in 2016, she would be the first female U.S. president.
Sources say, in advance of her announcement, Clinton has been holed up in recent days behind closed doors in policy meetings. The meetings have covered a range of subjects, including national security as well as domestic topics like the economy.
Clinton would join the race after two Republicans -- Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky -- already declared. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., also is expected to announce his plans next week.
Despite not being an official candidate, Clinton has faced immense scrutiny from the media, and Republicans, over her use of personal email while secretary of state and her family foundation's acceptance of foreign donations. On Friday, Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus said Clinton "has left a trail of secrecy, scandal and failed liberal policies that no image consultant can erase."

Unions fight to preserve Obama’s immigration actions, their members

Two of the country’s most powerful and politically influential labor unions are backing President Obama in the recent court challenge to his 2014 executive action on illegal immigration, saying they support the president’s effort because "undocumented workers" need more workplace protection and their participation helps the U.S. economy.
The AFL-CIO and the National Education Association on Monday each filed so-called amicus briefs in a federal appeals court case in which Texas and 26 other states are challenges the president’s 2014 memorandum on illegal immigration.
The memorandum essentially expands work authorization and delayed-deportation programs for illegal immigrants. And it provides similar opportunities for the parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents.
The AFL-CIO’s 36-page brief essentially argues that Texas lacks the so-called “legal standing” to challenge the memorandum and that the administration didn’t violate procedural requirements in issuing the order.
However, the union also makes very clear its interest in the outcome of the proceedings.
“First, through existing collective bargaining relationships, AFL-CIO affiliates represent many undocumented workers in workplaces throughout the country,” according to the brief by the AFL-CIO, the country’s bigger union collective, with 56 unions representing roughly 12 million workers and retired workers.
Union lawyers argue such workers have substantive protection under labor and employment law but not to a “full range of remedies” when such laws are violated.
Such workers are not entitled to back pay under the National Labor Relations Act and are vulnerable to employer retaliation if they complain about violations, the lawyers argue.
“Secondly, this lack of legal remedies and vulnerability to retaliation creates an incentive for some unscrupulous employers to employ large numbers of undocumented workers at sub-standard wages and working conditions,” they continue in the brief. “Law-abiding employers must compete with these employers, making it more difficult for AFL-CIO affiliate unions to raise wages and improve working conditions.”
Many critics of Obama’s plans to reform federal immigration law without a vote in Congress say he is providing “amnesty” to those who have entered the U.S. illegally. They also say his plans -- backed by Americans companies and labor unions -- take away jobs from U.S. citizens.
"The labor unions, like Democratic politicians, have decided to rely on importing the citizens of other nations to gain power in this one. Of course this cancels out jobs and votes for Americans," a GOP congressional aide told FoxNews.com on Saturday.
In 2004, the AFL-CIO spent $5.1 million in lobbying and gave $8.7 million in political-related contributions, with no money going to Republicans, according to OpenSecrets.org.
The entire case, Texas et al v. USA, started in February when a federal judge granted the states a preliminary injunction, which temporarily stops Obama’s 2014 plan from going into effect.
The U.S. government wants the injunction lifted so Obama's actions can proceed but meanwhile has appealed the Texas court ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in New Orleans, in which the amicus briefs have been filed.
Obama's actions would prevent as many as 5 million people who are in the U.S. illegally from being deported.
The 27 states also argue that the 2014 action is unconstitutional and would force them to invest more in law enforcement, health care and education.
The injunction is intended to stall Obama's actions while the lawsuit progresses through the courts.
Obama's orders to expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children was set to take effect Feb. 18. The part that would extend deportation protections to the parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents was slated to begin on May 19.
The 44-page amicus brief from the American Federation of Teachers includes seven other groups including ASPIRA -- the largest national Latino organization in the country.
The document largely makes the case that all children in the U.S. should have access to education for their “psychological, emotional, and physical well-being” and that children in families in which at least one member is an illegal immigrant should not be forced to live apart from their parents.
A coalition of groups including the Service Employees International Union, the second-largest public service union and a big supporter of Democratic political candidates and organizations, filed an amicus brief in the original case.
“The November 20, 2014 executive action on immigration would have beneficial effects on the U.S. economy and U.S. workers,” the brief states in part. “Temporary work authorization for those immigrants who are eligible for deferred action will raise not only their wages, but the wages of all Americans, which will in turn increase government tax revenue and create new jobs.”

Obama says partisanship wrangling over Iran nuclear deal 'needs to stop'

The King has Spoken.

President Obama said Saturday that partisan wrangling over the nuclear agreement with Iran has gone beyond pale and said the harsh criticism of the deal “needs to stop.”
Obama said that Arizona Sen. John McCain had suggested Secretary of State John Kerry’s explanations of the framework agreement in Iran were “somehow less trustworthy” than those of Iran’s supreme leader.
"That's an indication of the degree to which partisanship has crossed all boundaries," an exercised Obama said in a news conference at the end of the two-day Summit of the Americas. "And we're seeing this again and again."
Obama said he understood that people would be against the proposed deal and be suspicious of Iran.
"But when you start getting to the point where you are actively communicating that the United States government and our secretary of state is somehow spinning presentations in a negotiation with a foreign power, particularly one you say is your enemy, that's a problem," he said.
An aggressive Obama even attacked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for his criticism, saying the Kentucky Republican had been “telling the world” not to have confidence that the U.S. can meet its own climate change goals.
Obama also renewed complaints about the 47 Republican senators who sent a letter to Iran’s leaders saying that any deal the Iranians made with the U.S. would not necessarily hold up after Obama has left the office.
Obama said he's still "absolutely positive" that the framework agreement is the best way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And he added that if the final negotiations don't produce a tough enough agreement, the U.S. can back away from it.
The president added that instead of working to make the nuclear deal better, GOP critics seemed out to sink it.
"I don't understand why it is that everybody's working so hard to anticipate failure," he said.
McCain fired back at Obama’s complaints Saturday night.
McCain last week said that comments by Iran's supreme leader had suggested that Iran and the Obama administration were on different pages. McCain called the supreme leader's suggestion that Iran wouldn't allow unlimited inspections "a major setback," adding that it was the supreme leader, not President Hassan Rouhani or Iran's foreign minister, who really calls the shots in Iran.
"These widely divergent explanations of the nuclear deal must be fully explained and reconciled if we are to give serious consideration to this agreement,” McCain said.
McCain, the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, was among the signatories to the GOP letter to Iran's leaders warning that any deal struck with Obama would be "a mere executive agreement" that the next president could revoke. In the days since, McCain has stood by the letter's sentiment while acknowledging that writing to the leadership in Tehran had not been the most effective move. Kerry has denounced that letter as "unconstitutional."
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is set to debate and begin voting Tuesday on amendments to legislation calling for Congress to have a say on the nuclear agreement.
Obama opposes the bill as written and has pledged to veto it, but lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have proposed numerous amendments to either make a final deal impossible to reach or to give the White House more leeway to negotiate with Iran.
Under the bill, Obama could unilaterally lift or ease any sanctions that were imposed on Iran through presidential action. But he would be prohibited for 60 days from suspending, waiving or otherwise easing any sanctions Congress levied on Iran.