Considerettes


Conservative commentary served up in bite-sized bits

July 31st, 2012

Do You Hold Your President To the Same Standard As Your Fast-Food Restaurant?

Got our last shot at a family summer vacation recently, which is why I’ve been quiet around here. Niagara Falls was wonderful. Thanks for asking. And actually it wasn’t the entire family. My son had marching band camp last week, so my wife stayed here with him for that. Band camp was so early because school starts so early; August 6! And there are some metro Atlanta schools starting this week, in July! Maybe they’re trying to ease us into year-round school.

Over vacation, something of a brouhaha got started around a statement by Chick-fil-a CEO Dan Cathy.

The company invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation (WinShape.com). The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners.

It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center modeled after the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove.

"That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries," Cathy added.

Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company’s position.

"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

Combine this with previous statements and look at where the Cathy’s give money, and the worst-kept secret of Chick-fil-a was "exposed"; the Cathy’s are against same-sex marriage.

This prompted shock — SHOCK — among a group of big city mayors. Boston mayor Tom Menino:

“There’s no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail,” Menino wrote to Cathy in a July 20 letter, “and no place for your company alongside it.”

Los Angeles mayor Edwin Lee:

“Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away,” tweeted San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee on July 26, “& I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.”

And Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel said something similar.

All this because the CEO of Chick-fil-a has the same position on same-sex marriage that President Obama had up until six months ago.

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” - April 17, 2008, while running for president, defining marriage at the Saddleback Presidential Forum.

The previously link Washington Post story also has this addendum.

Since making their initial comments, Boston Mayor Tom Menino and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel have sought to clarify that they do not intend to use city resources to block Chick-fil-A’s permitting efforts on account of CEO Dan Cathy’s political or religious views. They stand by their comments, however, that the stores do not belong in their cities.

So no organization who’s CEO’s personal beliefs don’t line up with the mayor’s is not welcome. This from the "tolerance" brigade? Does anyone on the Left side of the aisle see the irony here?

And if it’s just about same-sex marriage, why this?

After supporting a call to block Chick-fil-A over the religious views of its management, the Chicago mayor welcomed an army of men dispatched to his streets by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, the Chicago Sun Times reported Wednesday.

Islam doesn’t permit same-sex marriage, either. In fact, in Islamic countries, homosexuals are killed. No (honest) Christian is suggesting that be done. If you accuse Christians of having a persecution complex, you must reconcile shunning a Christian-owned business over a widely held Christian belief with welcoming Muslims that have the exact same one.

And this just in: I hear that, in order to faithfully represent the values of Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago, Chick-fil-a will now start murdering people and selling meth. But maybe that’s just a rumor.

Finally, Mike Huckabee has organized a "buy-cott" of Chick-fil-a for tomorrow, August 1st. There’s an official Facebook event page for it that Huckabee started, as well as one that suggests taking a picture of the restaurant you go to in order to show how big the crowds are. I’ll see you there.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Share the Linkage:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Furl
  • Fark
  • YahooMyWeb
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • De.lirio.us
  • blogmarks
  • co.mments
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • RawSugar
  • Simpy
  • Spurl
July 18th, 2012

How Important is the Right to Vote?

Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, speaking to the NAACP on the racism of voter ID laws.

“Many of those without IDs would have to travel great distances to get them and some would struggle to pay for the documents they might need to obtain them,” Holder said in a speech to the NAACP on Tuesday, referring specifically to a law being implemented in Texas. “We call those poll taxes.”

But not just anyone was allowed in to hear Mr. Holder rail against proper identification. The journalists listening to him, in order to get in, had to provide … wait for it … proper identification. So it is racist to require ID, and if so, what if the NAACP requires it? The answer … could get you charged with a hate crime.

Y’know, if you want to rent a movie, buy a beer and cigarettes, or fly on an airplane, you have to have an ID. Are each of them more important than your right to vote? Is that the message Holder and the NAACP are trying to send.

Check out this site for a list of myths about voter ID laws, and why they are indeed myths. And the next time you go to the Will Call window to pick up your tickets to the game or concert, and have to show your ID, consider whether that so-called hassle is worth it to protect your constitutional right to vote.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Share the Linkage:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Furl
  • Fark
  • YahooMyWeb
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • De.lirio.us
  • blogmarks
  • co.mments
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • RawSugar
  • Simpy
  • Spurl
July 13th, 2012

Should Politics Be Discussed in Church?

Michelle Obama thinks so.

There is no better place than church to talk about political issues because they are ultimately moral issues, First Lady Michelle Obama told a church gathering on Thursday.

“To anyone who says that church is no place to talk about these issues, you tell them there is no place better – no place better,” Obama told the African Methodist Episcopal Church’s 49th general conference, held in in Nashville, Tenn.

“Because ultimately, these are not just political issues – they are moral issues,” she said. “They’re issues that have to do with human dignity and human potential, and the future we want for our kids and our grandkids.”

When the political and the moral intersect, I agree that churches should not be afraid to take a stand on an issue (and shouldn’t lose it’s tax-exempt status when doing so). So I’m glad to hear Mrs. Obama talk about this.

But does anyone want to guess what the "separation of church and state" crowd would have done if Laura Bush had said the same thing? I think we all know what reaction they would have had. So bookmark that page for when they get their voice back. (They’ve been rather quite for, oh, about 4 years now.)

Popularity: 1% [?]

Share the Linkage:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Furl
  • Fark
  • YahooMyWeb
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • De.lirio.us
  • blogmarks
  • co.mments
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • RawSugar
  • Simpy
  • Spurl
July 4th, 2012

A Closer Look at the ObamaCare Supreme Court Ruling

Episode 5 of the "Consider This!" podcast is out today and it’s all about a single topic, so I thought I’d post the script here for those who don’t do podcasts. If you do do podcasts, click here for the show notes and ways to subscribe, or just listen, to the show.


I mentioned previously that while the individual mandate was struck down as an exercise of the Commerce Clause, it hung in there as an exercise of the taxing authority of the federal government. That is to say, the way it was sold to the American people, and the way the Obama administration is continuing to try to defend it, is unconstitutional. By being given the authority to regulate commerce, Congress cannot force you to engage in commerce so that they can then regulate it. However, if arranged in a way such that you have to pay a tax if you don’t comply, well then it’s all hunky-dory. So then, when you hear Democrats insist that the mandate is not a tax, as they have been saying, remember that they are therefore arguing that it’s unconstitutional. They’re trying to have their mandate and eat it, too.

The main reason they’re arguing that it’s not a tax — going against a Supreme Court ruling that they are ostensibly in favor of — is because of the legislative ramifications. A tax can be repealed on a bare majority vote, and is not subject to a 60 vote Senate filibuster. This makes it much easier for, say, a President Romney and a Republican House and Senate to repeal. I would have thought that trifecta tough to accomplish this November, but with this ruling, I suspect a fire is going to be lit under many a conservative, and I hope that this translates into votes. I think Democrats, too, see this scenario as more plausible today than it was before the ruling, which is why they’re trying to make this particular hard sell. Billy Mays, the TV pitchman who used to try to sell you so many handy items, would be proud.

If you insist, against the advice of the Supreme Court, that the Commerce Clause should be good enough to implement a mandate, consider this. The intention of the clause itself was a negative power; a preventative, restraining one. It was written so that there was an authority to appeal to when there were trade disputes among the states. It was never intended to be a positive power by the federal government; one that allowed it to act on its own. Those aren’t my words. Those are James Madison’s. But hey, he’s just what some people call The Father of The Constitution. What would he know?

Read the rest of this entry »

Popularity: 1% [?]

Share the Linkage:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Furl
  • Fark
  • YahooMyWeb
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • De.lirio.us
  • blogmarks
  • co.mments
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • RawSugar
  • Simpy
  • Spurl
July 2nd, 2012

Throw a Party for Government Dependence!

Tupperware parties are sooo Bush-era. The USDA is now suggesting  you throw a Food Stamp party to let folks know in on the free stuff. (Link is to a PDF file.)

Throw a Great Party. Host social events where people mix and mingle. Make it fun by having activities, games, food, and entertainment, and provide information about SNAP. Putting SNAP information in a game format like BINGO, crossword puzzles, or even a “true/false” quiz is fun and helps get your message across in a memorable way.

The document gives you new and "fresh" ways to tell seniors about the program. Try that at your next get-together.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Share the Linkage:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Furl
  • Fark
  • YahooMyWeb
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • De.lirio.us
  • blogmarks
  • co.mments
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • RawSugar
  • Simpy
  • Spurl