Quotes of the day

posted at 10:31 pm on July 1, 2014 by Allahpundit

[A]s John J. Dilulio Jr., the first director of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, writes over at Brookings, “Love it or loathe it, the Hobby Lobby decision is limited in scope.” It’s about how the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to this particular objection from Hobby Lobby and other “closely held” companies, or businesses that are mostly owned by a small group of people who also happen to run them. And the Court went out of its way to clarify that their ruling does not apply to other possible medical objections, like blood transfusions and vaccinations.

Most importantly, this ruling won’t necessarily prevent women who work at Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood, or other religious companies from accessing birth control through their insurance plans. In the majority opinion, Alito specifically suggests that the government could use the same kind of exemption it has set up for non-profit organizations: Companies would have to sign a short document certifying that they object to providing birth-control coverage, and then the government would take over coverage from there. Several separate court cases about this accommodation are still pending in lower courts, but the point is that the Court doesn’t think bosses should get to deny affordable birth-control access to their employees—they just shouldn’t necessarily have to pay for it.

***

Roy continues: “[W]hile the government can’t compel Hobby Lobby to finance abortifacients, it can compel taxpayers to do so. Isn’t that a distinction without a difference?” I think there is a difference. The government can let pacifists out of military service without letting them out of paying taxes to support the military, and nobody believes that distinction meaningless. Pro-lifers should object to having their tax dollars spent on abortifacients. But it’s worse for pro-lifers to be forced to offer insurance that covers them. It’s worse because it requires more direct cooperation on their part, and because it carries a greater risk of communicating an untruth about their moral conviction.

Roy’s arguments and mine bear a family resemblance to ones that got aired during the debate over the individual mandate. Most opponents of it argued that there was a difference in principle between being forced to pay taxes that are then used to provide insurance and being forced to buy insurance. If you think that argument holds up (as I do, and most conservatives do), the distinction holds up here as well.

***

Ginsburg’s dissent begins by calling the decision one of “startling breadth.” The high court ruled that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government cannot require “closely held” corporations–those with most of their stock owned by fewer than five individuals–whose owners possess “sincerely religious beliefs” against the use of contraception to provide health insurance to employees that covers birth control. Ginsburg fears that the majority has “ventured into a minefield” with the decision, which could allow corporations to “opt out of any law” that “they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”…

Ginsburg’s opinion, some legal experts say, may turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. By stating that the opinion is much broader than the majority claims it to be, she may be providing lower-court judges with a stronger foundation to provide more religious exemptions in the future.

“If the dissenters had simply taken Kennedy at his word in his concurrence, and simply agreed it was narrow, the lower court judges would have had to work very hard to say this applies broadly,” said Eric Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. “Now they can just cite Ginsburg, and say she thought it applied broadly.”

***

The court cited the government’s ability to meet women’s need for affordable access to contraception in other ways, specifically pointing to government provision of birth control as an option. But in the current reproductive rights environment, that will never happen. Opponents of reproductive rights are trying to limit access to comprehensive women’s health care from all directions. At the federal level, they have attempted to defund Title X, which provides funding for family planning for our poorest sisters in community clinics. At the state level, in Texas for example, there are attacks on government money for contraception and clinics that offer abortion care. There is a movement to prohibit government support not only for abortion services—which, with a few exceptions, has existed for three decades—but also for emergency contraception and certain forms of birth control. Even a woman’s ability to pay for her own coverage is under attack: Some states’ exchanges and the federal exchange are prohibited from providing insurance that covers abortion care.

In sum, the anti-choice movement wants to limit not just affordable access, but all access to abortion and birth control, whether it is backed by the government, by employers, or purchased by private citizens. It is an attack at all levels, and today’s decision is just another success in these efforts.

***

I like to think that I care about both the women and the religious conservatives who share this great nation of ours. It seemed to me from the beginning that being made to pay for something that someone views as deeply morally wrong (or to facilitate the transaction for same, if you take the general view that employee health insurance ultimately comes out of employee wages) was going to be a giant burden on people of conscience. And because the loss to women was small, it seemed fairly obvious to me that we should grant the freedom of conscience to people who clearly have some very deeply held beliefs — not because women’s health is not very important, but because this was not going to have a very important impact on women’s health.

And yet the logic of politics, and the culture war, made this sort of fine distinction-drawing impossible. As I see it, this case should never have made it to the court; the Barack Obama administration should have pre-empted the issue by quietly allowing exemptions for nonprofits and closely held corporations that had clear and deep religious beliefs that existed outside of the desire not to pay for contraception. (Hobby Lobby, for example, is closed on Sundays in observation of the Sabbath, even though this costs them sales; I think we can all agree that the Little Sisters of the Poor have demonstrated a fair amount of commitment to demanding religious principles.)

Instead, the administration chose to pick this fight — and got a definitive ruling that will probably have much broader impacts than quiet exceptions. Nor is this surprising; it was pretty predictable from earlier rulings like Citizens United, in which the court also held that people don’t lose their First Amendment rights simply because they have come together in a group or legally organized that group as a corporation.

***

Conspicuously absent from yesterday’s post-Hobby Lobby hullabaloo was the acknowledgment on the left that the decision was the product of a court. Distilling into a single line what was a popular and widely disseminated critique, the New York Times’s Nick Kristof tweeted a picture of Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, sardonically labeling the quintet as “The experts on women’s health on the Supreme Court who ruled today against contraception coverage.” A few hours later, Senator Harry Reid’s office pushed out an assessment that was cut from the same unlovely cloth. “It’s time that five men on the Supreme Court stop deciding what happens to women,” Reid tweeted. Among the hysterical, that sentiment was ubiquitous.

One cannot help but wonder whether Kristof and Reid are aware of what the Supreme Court actually does — which, as anybody who has even a fleeting grasp of American civics knows, is not to set American policy, on health or anything else, but to interpret and uphold the law. In this particular case, the justices were called to judge whether a mandate that was pushed out by the Obama administration in 2012 was in conflict with another law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that was added to the books in 1992. This being so, the degree to which those who decided the case are “experts on women’s health” is wholly immaterial. The justices are jurists not doctors — they are nine appointed attorneys whose role in the American settlement is to provide legal answers to legal questions. Man or woman; straight or gay; handsome or ugly; Jew, Catholic, or protestant — the law must remain the law, regardless of in whose name its intricacies are decided. The alternative would be disastrous. Does Harry Reid aspire to see Roe v. Wade, which was decided by nine men, overturned?

Identity politics notwithstanding, the central implication of the Kristofs and Reids of the world — that the very involvement of the Court in this area is uncouth — is a rather strange one. The only way that such questions will not end up in the courts is if a political accommodation is reached: If Congress moves to reconcile its incompatible laws; if the Obama administration elects not to push the state into hitherto unthinkable areas; or if the Constitution is amended to render moot the question of what governments may require of the religious. In the absence of such action, the courts will inevitably be asked to intervene. Does the pair have a better way of resolving legal disputes? Is Marbury v. Madison to be reconsidered each time the result of a Supreme Court case is not to the liking of the New York Times?

***

[H]uman nature being what it is, loss aversion is generally more potent than the joys of winning, and even a string of victories doesn’t necessarily satisfy; if anything, it can just sharpen the appetite for further victories still. This is why ascendant parties, no matter their ideology, are rarely magnanimous to the defeated or the disfavored: Where a transformative agenda is being pursued, one set of gains is more likely make the next set of items seem that much more necessary, more essential, more inarguably correct. And under such circumstances, residual, rear-guard resistance can actually inspire more outrage than a stronger opposition, because the winning side comes to feel that it’s offensive that anyone is still fighting — don’t they know the battle’s over, don’t they know that history’s verdict has been rendered? Will no one rid me of this troublesome craft store?

This last impulse, I would suggest, is particularly potent in cases where the transformation in question is not necessarily delivering on its promises, and where there’s a felt need to find someone outside the enlightened community/the holy Catholic empire/History’s vanguard to blame for that falling-short. Where our current kulturkampf is concerned, for instance, I think most contemporary liberals are aware that post-1960s America is not quite the liberated and egalitarian utopia that was promised … but many of them are quite determined to believe that their own ideology is blameless, that there aren’t actually any internal contradictions in social liberalism, and that contemporary social problems must always and everywhere be the fault of something called “conservatism,” in all its varied guises. The revolution hasn’t failed or fallen; it’s just been resisted and disrupted by wreckers and reactionaries; etc. Which is how you end up with the sense, palpable in the liberal Twitter reaction to the Hobby Lobby decision, that if it weren’t for Catholic Supreme Court justices and evangelical-owned craft stores, all sorts of problems would gradually be washed away, like tears in a soft progressive rain.

And perhaps, if current trends persist for long enough, we will get to actually test that proposition. But not yet, not yet.

***

Via the Right Pundit.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7


Yup,…..IslamicJihady Death to InfedelsInsaneNutJobs,….long live the Caliphate sumpins:

https://twitter.com/NBCNews

NBC News @NBCNews · 2h

The suspect in the Benghazi U.S. consulate attack was motivated by ‘hatred,’ feds say http://bit.ly/1o0Xpyz

canopfor on July 2, 2014 at 5:26 AM

Current US Iraq Booty Presence Numbers?:
========================================

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=GGtcUuuYCOrs2QX52IHgDQ#q=Total+US+Troops+to+Iraq+at+750%3F%3F

About 2,940,000 results (0.35 seconds)
Search Results

News for Total US Troops to Iraq at 750??
Capital FM Kenya
More US troops being sent to Iraq, raising total to about 750
Charleston Post Courier ‎- 9 hours ago
Militants from the al-Qaida-inspired Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) celebrate the declaration of an Islamic state in Fallujah, 40 miles …
More US troops to Iraq, raising total to about 750
News Sentinel‎ – 7 hours ago
More news for Total US Troops to Iraq at 750??
==================================================

Marie Harf
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
July 1, 2014
************

Index for Today’s Briefing

DEPARTMENT
Secretary Kerry’s Travel to Panama
IRAQ / REGION
Government Formation / Parliament
Close Partnership
F-16s / Assistance
Iran
Embassy / Additional Security
ISIL
Secretary’s Meetings with Kurdish Leaders
Israel / Jordan / Counterterrorism
IRAN / REGION
Secretary’s Op-Ed in Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/iranian-nuclear-deal-still-is-possible-but-time-is-running-out/2014/06/30/8510fbe2-0091-11e4-8fd0-3a663dfa68ac_story.html?hpid=z3
========================================================

TRANSCRIPT:

12:52 p.m. EDT

MS. HARF: Welcome to the briefing, my last one for a while as we leave for Vienna this evening for several weeks, so a very large suitcase packed.

Just a quick item at the top in terms of the Secretary’s travel and then happy to open it up for questions

QUESTION: Can you talk about the additional U.S. troops that were deployed in recent days?

MS. HARF: Yes, we can. I think there was a little confusion about this yesterday. So yes, let’s chat a little bit about it.

QUESTION: Just in – just to clarify, because some of the military personnel who had been assigned to Embassy security have been moved over to these joint intelligence centers, are some of the people who are being deployed now essentially back-filling them at the Embassy in their security roles?

MS. HARF: That’s a good question. Let me check on that, Roz. I don’t know that. What I can – I wanted to make a couple points clear here, because I think there was some confusion yesterday.

This new group of 200 – up to 200 personnel that that the President notified to Congress yesterday is a mission that’s separate and distinct – totally separate and distinct from the assess and advise mission that the President announced, I think it was several weeks ago now. Obviously, the Embassy is still functioning. It’s a very busy Embassy. We’re continually re-evaluating our security needs and always planning for a variety of contingencies, and as such thought it was prudent at this time to provide authorization for up to 200. But this is a functioning embassy that’s very busy, and it’s actually because we want to keep working that we have provided a little additional security. A substantial majority of folks remain at the Embassy, but I want to be clear about missions here because I think some people were trying to lump together the 300 and the 200. These are really distinct missions. This is just for security at the Embassy at the airport to provide reinforcement of our facilities. Very separate from the assessing and advising mission that we talked about a few weeks ago with the special operators.

QUESTION: Were there U.S. military personnel at Baghdad airport before now? Because it was my understanding it was only for the Embassy, for the consulates –

MS. HARF: I can check and see what the – obviously there – I can check and see what the security looks like there.

QUESTION: Because there are now some reports suggesting that if Americans needed to be removed from Iraq that these military personnel would be there in case the State Department said we need you to help us evacuate people.

MS. HARF: I know there are a lot of sort of – four or five steps down the road here and hypotheticals about what these guys could be used for, but I – that’s why I wanted to make very clear they’re actually there to do the opposite, right, to make sure we can remain up and running, and that we have all this work that people in our Embassy are doing right now. They’re very busy, engaged with the leaders, talking to people, that we just at this point thought we needed a little bit extra security to make sure they can continue their work. And there’s work going on at the airport as well, a couple of different facilities. So I think that’s – I know there are hypotheticals here, but would stay away from that.

QUESTION: Right. Is it anticipated that more U.S. personnel will be needed for security? Do you think that this is it?

MS. HARF: I never want to say “this is it,” right. But we constantly re-evaluate and look at the security picture on the ground and plan for a number of contingencies, security-wise. So I don’t have anything to predict for you on that.
=========================

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/07/228665.htm

Daily Press Briefing – July 1, 2014
Jul. 1, 2014: U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing by Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf in Washington, DC.

http://video.state.gov/en/video/3654015188001

canopfor on July 2, 2014 at 5:31 AM

Good morning. Anybody still up? It’s supposed to be cooler today. Nice for a change since the heat will come back Monday.

crankyoldlady on July 2, 2014 at 5:11 AM

COL: Good Morning COL—–:0

You might get a kick out of this:)


We Were Soldiers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBbQm1avEY

canopfor on July 2, 2014 at 5:35 AM

Israel
11m
Photo: Heavy smoke seen as Palestinians clash with Israeli forces in Shufat in the West Bank – @SherineT

https://twitter.com/SherineT/status/484265350658527232/photo/1

canopfor on July 2, 2014 at 5:37 AM

For the few,the proud,and the cultured.
http://youtu.be/kbJcQYVtZMo

celtic warrior on July 2, 2014 at 5:40 AM

Sherine Tadros
@SherineT

Middle East Correspondent for Sky News Views are mine. RTs are just that.

Sherine Tadros @SherineT · 1h

Palestinians running carrying injured as #Israel police fire sound bombs in Shufat, ongoing clashes

https://twitter.com/SherineT/status/484254273220657152/photo/1

Sherine Tadros @SherineT · 2h

Police firing sound grenades, helicopters flying overhead, young Palestinians running for cover in Shufat

https://twitter.com/SherineT/status/484237433249472512/photo/1

canopfor on July 2, 2014 at 5:40 AM

For canopfor;
http://youtu.be/Dpylr2H7h7E

celtic warrior on July 2, 2014 at 5:44 AM

For the few,the proud,and the cultured.
http://youtu.be/kbJcQYVtZMo

celtic warrior on July 2, 2014 at 5:40 AM

Cool idea. Play something simple so anybody can plug in. I wonder where it was.

crankyoldlady on July 2, 2014 at 5:51 AM

Without these guys you would have no freedom.
http://youtu.be/sSRlQPD6Xiw

celtic warrior on July 2, 2014 at 5:52 AM

crankyoldlady on July 2, 2014 at 5:51 AM

Someone I served with in Nam died today. I am kind of down.

celtic warrior on July 2, 2014 at 5:59 AM

Current US Bootys in Iraq Numbers:

Marie Harf
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
July 1, 2014
=============

Index for Today’s Briefing

DEPARTMENT
Secretary Kerry’s Travel to Panama
IRAQ / REGION
Government Formation / Parliament
Close Partnership
F-16s / Assistance
Iran
Embassy / Additional Security
ISIL
Secretary’s Meetings with Kurdish Leaders
Israel / Jordan / Counterterrorism
IRAN / REGION
Secretary’s Op-Ed in Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/iranian-nuclear-deal-still-is-possible-but-time-is-running-out/2014/06/30/8510fbe2-0091-11e4-8fd0-3a663dfa68ac_story.html?hpid=z3
=========================================================

TRANSCRIPT:

12:52 p.m. EDT

MS. HARF: Welcome to the briefing, my last one for a while as we leave for Vienna this evening for several weeks, so a very large suitcase packed.
========

QUESTION: Can you talk about the additional U.S. troops that were deployed in recent days?

MS. HARF: Yes, we can. I think there was a little confusion about this yesterday. So yes, let’s chat a little bit about it.

QUESTION: Just in – just to clarify, because some of the military personnel who had been assigned to Embassy security have been moved over to these joint intelligence centers, are some of the people who are being deployed now essentially back-filling them at the Embassy in their security roles?

MS. HARF: That’s a good question. Let me check on that, Roz. I don’t know that. What I can – I wanted to make a couple points clear here, because I think there was some confusion yesterday.

This new group of 200 – up to 200 personnel that that the President notified to Congress yesterday is a mission that’s separate and distinct – totally separate and distinct from the assess and advise mission that the President announced, I think it was several weeks ago now. Obviously, the Embassy is still functioning. It’s a very busy Embassy. We’re continually re-evaluating our security needs and always planning for a variety of contingencies, and as such thought it was prudent at this time to provide authorization for up to 200. But this is a functioning embassy that’s very busy, and it’s actually because we want to keep working that we have provided a little additional security. A substantial majority of folks remain at the Embassy, but I want to be clear about missions here because I think some people were trying to lump together the 300 and the 200. These are really distinct missions. This is just for security at the Embassy at the airport to provide reinforcement of our facilities. Very separate from the assessing and advising mission that we talked about a few weeks ago with the special operators.

QUESTION: Were there U.S. military personnel at Baghdad airport before now? Because it was my understanding it was only for the Embassy, for the consulates –

MS. HARF: I can check and see what the – obviously there – I can check and see what the security looks like there.

QUESTION: Because there are now some reports suggesting that if Americans needed to be removed from Iraq that these military personnel would be there in case the State Department said we need you to help us evacuate people.

MS. HARF: I know there are a lot of sort of – four or five steps down the road here and hypotheticals about what these guys could be used for, but I – that’s why I wanted to make very clear they’re actually there to do the opposite, right, to make sure we can remain up and running, and that we have all this work that people in our Embassy are doing right now. They’re very busy, engaged with the leaders, talking to people, that we just at this point thought we needed a little bit extra security to make sure they can continue their work. And there’s work going on at the airport as well, a couple of different facilities. So I think that’s – I know there are hypotheticals here, but would stay away from that.

QUESTION: Right. Is it anticipated that more U.S. personnel will be needed for security? Do you think that this is it?

MS. HARF: I never want to say “this is it,” right. But we constantly re-evaluate and look at the security picture on the ground and plan for a number of contingencies, security-wise. So I don’t have anything to predict for you on that.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/07/228665.htm

Daily Press Briefing – July 1, 2014
Jul. 1, 2014: U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing by Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf in Washington, DC.

http://video.state.gov/en/video/3654015188001

canopfor on July 2, 2014 at 6:00 AM

Good morning another day another dem whining about not getting something for free

cmsinaz on July 2, 2014 at 6:01 AM

Someone I served with in Nam died today. I am kind of down.

celtic warrior on July 2, 2014 at 5:59 AM

I’m so sorry. It’s hard to lose someone you shared something with.

crankyoldlady on July 2, 2014 at 6:01 AM

Morning canopfor …soon the numbers will increase 1000+

cmsinaz on July 2, 2014 at 6:02 AM

Sorry to hear that cw:(

cmsinaz on July 2, 2014 at 6:03 AM

It sounds like Ms Harf wasn’t very well prepared.

crankyoldlady on July 2, 2014 at 6:05 AM

Morning canopfor …soon the numbers will increase 1000+

cmsinaz on July 2, 2014 at 6:02 AM

cmsinaz: Good morning, Yup, mission creepy.

Number I heard , er, read, was 750.:)

canopfor on July 2, 2014 at 6:07 AM

For canopfor;
http://youtu.be/Dpylr2H7h7E

celtic warrior on July 2, 2014 at 5:44 AM

celtic warrior: Superb, thank-you:)

canopfor on July 2, 2014 at 6:09 AM

LIVE NOW:..NASA …..50 minutes into flight

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
11m
NASA reports successful liftoff of rocket carrying Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite – @NASAKennedy

NASA @NASA · 10m

LAUNCH! of #OCO2 — our 1st mission dedicated to studying atmospheric carbon dioxide. Watch: http://1.usa.gov/AN75

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html#.U7PaIUDDWgY

canopfor on July 2, 2014 at 6:11 AM

Control Room:

https://twitter.com/NASA

NASA @NASA · 16m

Launch poll completed. We are GO for #OCO2 launch on a #DeltaII at 5:56am EDT from Vandenberg @30thSpaceWing.

https://twitter.com/NASA/status/484273290769596416/photo/1

canopfor on July 2, 2014 at 6:13 AM

30th Space Wing
@30thSpaceWing

For a glimpse of Vandenberg and the 30th Space Wing’s rich history, visit http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4606 … .

30th Space Wing @30thSpaceWing · 9m

Success! http://fb.me/6Re1hPg5s

30th Space Wing @30thSpaceWing · 18m

We have liftoff!

30th Space Wing @30thSpaceWing · 19m

T: MINUS 45 seconds!

30th Space Wing @30thSpaceWing · 22m

T: MINUS 4 minutes and counting…

canopfor on July 2, 2014 at 6:16 AM

It sounds like Ms Harf wasn’t very well prepared.

crankyoldlady on July 2, 2014 at 6:05 AM

COL: I bet Hawkdriver can decepher it,..but I think from Hopey down to
Harf,……this must be thee most inexperienced,..inept,….out of
there leagues,….incompetant to the hundredth power,…..

..Thee Worst US Government Administration in All of Americas History!!

canopfor on July 2, 2014 at 6:21 AM

Helper canopfor but don’t tell that to the libs …..koolaid is strong in them…..Bush!!!!

cmsinaz on July 2, 2014 at 6:28 AM

New poll out obama worst president since wwII and folks think country would be better if mitt won

Mj panel not digging it and still trying defend the idiot

cmsinaz on July 2, 2014 at 6:34 AM

New poll out obama worst president since wwII and folks think country would be better if mitt won

Mj panel not digging it and still trying defend the idiot

cmsinaz on July 2, 2014 at 6:34 AM

I caught some of that. They’re spinning as fast as they can, but it’s not working! Fun to watch.

Naturally Curly on July 2, 2014 at 6:42 AM

New poll out obama worst president since wwII and folks think country would be better if mitt won

Mj panel not digging it and still trying defend the idiot

cmsinaz on July 2, 2014 at 6:34 AM

Let me guess. Lamenting the rise of racism and intolerance in America since 2009 or something.

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2014 at 6:49 AM

QUESTION: Can you talk about the additional U.S. troops that were deployed in recent days?

MS. HARF: Yes, we can. I think there was a little confusion about this yesterday. So yes, let’s chat a little bit about it.

This incredibly stupid woman is also, incredibly, a spokescritter for the United States Department of State. And she wants to chat a little about the deployment of troops to Iraq? WANTS TO CHAT????

This, friends, is what passes as a professional within the current administration. Put on a pair of unisex hipster glasses and have a chat with the Washington Press Corpse.

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2014 at 6:53 AM

Naturally Curly on July 2, 2014 at 6:42 AM

indeed :)

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2014 at 6:49 AM

yup…

cmsinaz on July 2, 2014 at 6:54 AM

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2014 at 6:53 AM

well they are the lapdogs of this administration….

cmsinaz on July 2, 2014 at 6:56 AM

I hope those towns that are standing up against illegal trafficing have weapons.

crankyoldlady on July 2, 2014 at 7:17 AM

Good Morning, Patriots, Sockpuppets, and Trolls (but, I repeat myself)

You know as well as I do that people are scared to death to tell you what they really think. The left has politicized everything — everything — to the point that people are afraid to go against what they know to be political correctness, which is nothing more than liberal fascism, nothing more than censorship.

– Rush Limbaugh

My take: The New Fascism (July 2nd, 2014 Edition)

kingsjester on July 2, 2014 at 7:34 AM

kingsjester on July 2, 2014 at 7:34 AM

amen KJ….

cmsinaz on July 2, 2014 at 7:47 AM

amen KJ….

cmsinaz on July 2, 2014 at 7:47 AM

Thank you, ma’am!

kingsjester on July 2, 2014 at 7:51 AM

My take: The New Fascism (July 2nd, 2014 Edition)

kingsjester on July 2, 2014 at 7:34 AM

The Washington Redskins are talking about building a new stadium (even though FEDEX Field isn’t 20 years old). Two predictions in light of the new political fascism. First, FEDEX will be pressured to relinquish its naming rights so long as the team is named the Redskins and not the Washington Pajamaboys or something. Secondly, if the new stadium is proposed at the old RFK stadium site, the DC government will thwart efforts so long as the team is named the Redskins.

Bottom line, it is pretty much intevitable that the Redskins will end up changing their name. Proponents of caving to political correctness should just shut up because it isn’t going to happen so long as the name change isn’t according to Dan Snyder’s terms.

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM

My take: The New Fascism (July 2nd, 2014 Edition)

kingsjester on July 2, 2014 at 7:34 AM

This is something we’ve known for some time but people are finally speaking out and taking action.

crankyoldlady on July 2, 2014 at 8:03 AM

crankyoldlady on July 2, 2014 at 8:03 AM

Yep. What those Patriots in California did yesterday was a beautiful thing to behold.

kingsjester on July 2, 2014 at 8:07 AM

This may seem totally off the wall but it could happen. The country is falling into such chaos that congress will eventually have to act. Things will become increasingly hot for the White House gang. Someday the staff will report for work and find them all gone – the family, their operatives in the West Wing, anybody who is nervous about being held responsible. I remember this happening in Iraq. The government just disappeared one day.

Or they will make a deal with congress to stop whatever they have been doing so they can stay.

crankyoldlady on July 2, 2014 at 8:22 AM

Yep. What those Patriots in California did yesterday was a beautiful thing to behold.

kingsjester on July 2, 2014 at 8:07 AM

And it gives courage to others.

crankyoldlady on July 2, 2014 at 8:23 AM

Bottom line, it is pretty much intevitable that the Redskins will end up changing their name. Proponents of caving to political correctness should just shut up because it isn’t going to happen so long as the name change isn’t according to Dan Snyder’s terms.
Happy Nomad on July 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM

Snyder will move the Redskins to Virginia where even the democrat lawmakers support them. In a few years we will have the Virginia Redskins or Richmond Redskins.

fight like a girl on July 2, 2014 at 9:50 AM

crankyoldlady on July 2, 2014 at 5:51 AM

Someone I served with in Nam died today. I am kind of down.

celtic warrior on July 2, 2014 at 5:59 AM

CW, I’m so sorry for your loss. He is in God’s arms… the best place to be. May you find comfort in knowing that.
{{{hugs}}}

31giddyup on July 2, 2014 at 11:08 AM

OmahaConservative on July 2, 2014 at 2:28 AM

right2bright posts almost every day, sometimes lots.

Schadenfreude on July 2, 2014 at 11:19 AM

Howdy Bmore

Schadenfreude on July 2, 2014 at 1:53 PM

right2bright posts almost every day, sometimes lots.

Schadenfreude on July 2, 2014 at 11:19 AM

Yeah, you are right. He just doesn’t seem to be in the QOTD anymore…

OmahaConservative on July 2, 2014 at 5:17 PM

Ebola outbreak in Africa

lineholder on July 2, 2014 at 5:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7