* The Chick-Fil-A controversy. The company is a family owned business and its' president, Dan Cathy, said that he believes in the biblical definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat, said: "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values." I suppose that means the right to free speech and religious freedom, as given in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, are not Chicago values. Chicago Alderman Proco "Joe" Moreno, another Democrat, indicated he would block Chick-fil-A's efforts to open a store in his ward. So, the right to run a business and make a living are also not Chicago values apparently.
Moreno said: "Because of this man's (Cathy) ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A's permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward." The "ignorance" he refers to arises out of the Judeo-Christian bibles, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Judeo-Christian values are also not Chicago values. Said Mayor Edwin Lee, a Democrat, of San Francisco: "The closest Chick-fil-A to San Francisco is 40 miles away and I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer." So now we get to threaten businesses if they do not meet our political litmus-test. There's a value. Washington, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray, a Democrat, referred to Chick-fil-A chicken as "hate chicken." (I don't really know the chickens' opinions on gay marriage, but that's another matter.)
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, yet another Democrat, said: "There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it." So, the Founders then did NOT believe in the First Amendment? I wonder how it ended up in the Constitution. When American soldiers fight and die for this country they are doing so for freedom and liberty for ALL Americans, not just those who are Democrats.
So what's going on here with these Democrats? The "values" that they are expressing are essentially fascist values. The sad part is that they and their party have moved so far to the left, that they often express, as above, completely non-democratic values. The Left also uses language to support their demonization of those opposed to them. Therefore, instead of "gay marriage" they talk about "marriage equality." So, if you are opposed to "equality" you must be evil, ignorant,etc. Hence, the verbal attacks and even threats. (This is analagous to those on the left not using the word "abortion" but, rather, "a woman's right to choose.") Of course, they do make exceptions for their friends and allies. In 2008, candidate for president Barack Obama said: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian...it is also a sacred union." This comment, expressed on national TV, did not prevent Mr. Emanuel from accepting the job of Chief of Staff to the President. Nor did Mr. Emanuel express any concerns at the time about the President's "values."
Not a single one of these democrats was able to demonstrate that Chick-fil-A discriminated against gays in hiring, or in denying of service. But here's a question: if a Muslim owned restaurant opened in their city and it was run by a devout Muslim who did not believe in gay marriage, what do you think you would hear from these Mayors? Silence. The same silence you hear from them about the real mistreatment of gays that occurs throughout the muslim world.
* Who plays the race/ethnic card? In one of the more racist, elitist and otherwise arrogant comments by an elected official, Senator Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, and a Democrat, said this on 8/10/11: "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican. Do I need to say more?" Yes, Senator, you do. First, an apology to Republican Hispanics would be nice. Second, it is exactly this type of thinking by my former party that I find so incredibly distasteful. If you are Hispanic you must be a Democrat? Why? Because the Democrats will give you more handouts at taxpayers' expense? What about those Hispanics, and there are many, who believe in hard work and the freedom and opportunity to succeed on their own? What about people who don't just want a handout? Need I say more, Senator Reid?
Not to be outdone by Senator Reid, however, is the head of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Obviously a Democrat. Ms. Schultz: "There is nothing, and I mean nothing, in the Republicans' right wing agenda that appeals to the American Jewish Community." So, again, if you are a Jew (like Hispanics) you must be a Democrat. Must I? Really? If I thought she would read it, I would send her the link to this blog and she could see what this Jew finds more appealing from the Right than the Left. But let's be honest. Even if she read the blog, she would say that I just did not know what was best for me. This idea of "group-think" is another distasteful idea promulgated by...that's right...Democrats.
It is precisely this type of thinking that leads Democrats to demonize any minority group member who happens to be a Republican. They trashed Justice Clarence Thomas, a black man, for having conservative views. Larry Elder, a black radio talk show host has been called all sorts of horrendous names by black Democrat callers. And the Democrats will trash Senator Marco Rubio, a Hispanic, if Romney picks him as his running mate.
* Is that your business or Obama's? By now, most people have heard President Obama, a Democrat, say: "If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He later explained that he was referring to the bridges and roads throughout the country that enable businesses to operate. He had also mentioned having a great teacher to help you. This was after-the-fact nonsense. Here's the proof. Obama had already said: "I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there." This is nothing other than collectivist thinking, which comes as no shock to those of us paying attention during the last election when Obama said: "it's a good idea to spread the wealth around."
When he said "somebody" helped to build the American system that allows business to thrive, he is correct. But it was the American citizen and taxpayer, often that "self-made" businessman, who did that. And maybe more often, it was private companies building roads and railways and airlines. But don't tell me everyone created Microsoft. Or Apple. Or any number of other businesses, large and small. Yes, there are plenty of smart and hardworking people out there. But it takes more than smarts and hard work, it involves a willingness to take a risk, often with one's own money, to make for a successful business. I know when I work long hours at night or on the weekend no one is there helping me or sitting next to me. (Well, maybe the IRS looking for their cut, but that's a different matter.) So don't tell business people they didn't build their business. Of course they did. And often they do it notwithstanding all the tax and regulatory burdens placed on them.
* Here's the real bottom line for Obama and the Democrats - since you didn't build it, you have no right to keep the proceeds from it. After all, there are other smart people out there. There are other hard-working people out there. Why should millionaires and billionaires get to keep money they didn't really earn? And THAT is how Obama and today's Democrats see the world. Doubt me? Then how about this recent line from Obama in reference to an across the board extension of what's referred to as the "Bush-era tax cuts" - we cannot afford "another trillion-dollar giveaway for millionaires." In other words, the government would be "giving away" a trillion dollars to these wealthy Americans if they don't raise their taxes and take that money away! Except that's backwards from American notions of freedom - if you earned the money, THEN IT'S YOUR MONEY. It is in no sense a giveaway of money that the government neither owns nor has a right to own. Unless, of course, you are Obama or a modern day Democrat, people who have adopted the type of collectivist mentality that was always considered to be antithetical to American values.
And it is, in part, for all of the Democrat viewpoints expressed above that I am no longer a Democrat. For those of you who are Democrats, and if you agree with these leaders of your party, do you at least acknowledge that freedom and liberty and the Constitution have been replaced by other values?