Senator Sylvia Allen: The Tragedy of Charlottesville Riots

Sylvia Allen

Senator Sylvia Allen

“How can we know who we are and where we are going if we don’t know anything about where we have come from and what we have been through, the courage shown, the costs paid, to be where we are?”

– David  McCullough:  American author, and historian

By Sylvia Allen

History must be preserved and protected.  It must not be distorted and altered to fit the whim of the current political movement.  We learn from our past.  We take the mistakes and change ourselves so we don’t repeat them.  We understand the deeds of good men and women who had the courage to stand for what’s right, and we continue to emulate that.

Our American founders expressed over and over how important it was for our founding principles to be taught to future generations.  Thomas Jefferson said that we cannot be ignorant and free.  Over the last 50 years, we have distorted the past for political gain.  We have destroyed the loyalty and love for our country in the hearts of many of our youth.  We have held up other governing philosophy as superior to ours, leaving out the truth of brutal consequences.If someone is protesting peacefully (I repeat, peacefully and legally) we will respect that, even if we don’t agree with them.   It is their God given

If someone is protesting peacefully (I repeat, peacefully and legally) we will respect that, even if we don’t agree with them. It is their God given right to freedom of expression.  If we take away their rights, we have also taken away our own rights.   I strongly reject and condemn the beliefs of white supremacy groups.  I can reject their message and still allow them to peacefully speak.We need to understand the principles of fascism,

We need to understand the principles of fascism, totalitarianism and Marxism. All the “ism’s” have one thing in common; they control people’s thinking, their property and every aspect of their life. The fascism and totalitarianism ideals are so far Right that they meet Marxism and communism on the other side.  Russia, China and Germany murdered millions to control how people think or behave, often sending those who spoke out to concentration camp.  In Munich, Germany 1938, “Kristallnacht”, or The Night of Broken Glass,resulted in thousands of Jewish men, women and children being beaten and killed along with the destruction of their shops and homes. From there it led to the gas chambers.There are parallels in history with what is happening not only in Charlottesville but for the last few years of rioting in our country.  My question and concern

There are parallels in history with what is happening not only in Charlottesville but for the last few years of rioting in our country.  My question and concern is, where will it lead us to?Now we hear that the Washington and Jefferson monuments should be torn down because both presidents were slave owners.  Again, what was the world like over 200 years ago?  The entire world’s economy was slave-driven due to the lack of machinery and the fact that all things had to be produced by human energy.  Even certain African nations sold their fellow countrymen into slavery.  Indentured servants, for all intent and purposes, were slaves until their servitude time was served.  Even today, North Korea and China use slave labor.

Now we hear that the Washington and Jefferson monuments should be torn down because both presidents were slave owners.  Again, what was the world like over 200 years ago?  The entire world’s economy was slave-driven due to the lack of machinery and the fact that all things had to be produced by human energy.  Even certain African nations sold their fellow countrymen into slavery.  Indentured servants, for all intent and purposes, were slaves until their servitude time was served.  Even today, North Korea and China use slave labor.For millennia, people’s fate was determined by what station in life they were born into. Then a new dawn of governing appeared, driven by the conviction that all men are created equal and that all were born with inalienable rights from their Creator.  These thoughts revolutionized the world.

For millennia, people’s fate was determined by what station in life they were born into. Then a new dawn of governing appeared, driven by the conviction that all men are created equal and that all were born with inalienable rights from their Creator.  These thoughts revolutionized the world.Yes, some of our founders owned slaves.  They were born into

Yes, some of our founders owned slaves.  They were born into a world that had been functioning this way for thousands of years. But more importantly, our founders had the courage to declare that it was a time for change and that the current system must be reformed so that all should be free.  These doctrines are not the problem, they are eternal truths; it is mankind who finds it difficult to live them.  If those men and women in 1776 had not established a new form of government, what would America be like today?

You and I have a responsibility to stand as citizens to defend our Constitution and founding principles that have given us prosperity and individual freedom.  We must defend the rights of individuals to have freedom of expression and to believe in the dictates of their own conscience without reprisal. This was an inalienable right given to us from our Creator.   It is our time now to see if we are worthy of the blessings of freedom.  To be born free is a privilege, but to die free is an awesome responsibility.

You and I have a responsibility to stand as citizens to defend our Constitution and founding principles that have given us prosperity and individual freedom.  We must defend the rights of individuals to have freedom of expression and to believe in the dictates of their own conscience without reprisal. This was an inalienable right given to us from our Creator.   It is our time now to see if we are worthy of the blessings of freedom.  To be born free is a privilege, but to die free is an awesome responsibility.

Speaker Mesnard Applauds Court Decision Allowing Initiative Compliance Law to Take Effect

Arizona Seal

JD Mesnard

JD Mesnard

STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX – House Speaker J.D. Mesnard (R-17) today applauded a decision by the Arizona Superior Court allowing legislation (HB 2244) passed by the Legislature earlier this year to take effect tomorrow.  HB 2244 creates uniformity, provides greater clarity, and ensures integrity in the signature-gathering process for initiatives and referenda by compelling strict compliance with requirements set forth in statute and the Constitution.

“Because the Legislature doesn’t have the ability to address unintended consequences created by initiatives, it’s important that initiative campaigns strictly comply with the law,” said Speaker Mesnard.  “I’m pleased with the Court’s decision and look forward to the implementation of the law.”

The new law goes into effect tomorrow, August 9.

Now, Becky….

A Letter to the Editor that include the phrase, “I am outraged…” is a letter from a zealot.

Right or Left, they all arise from the same crop of pods (yes, I did watch “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” last night on Turner Classic Movies, thank you). One arrived from a Person of the Outraged Left in The Republic today.

“I am outraged that our senator, Jeff Flake, during his time to question the Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch would ask: ‘Would you rather fight 100 duck-sized horses, or one horse-sized duck?” wrote Republic reader Ms. Becky (full name withheld because maybe she’s taken a pill and calmed down by now).

You know, it was an odd question for Sen. Flake to ask. But with all the purple-faced fake outrage being directed by the Left against Gorsuch (the worst? the absolute worst? oh, yesssss: Right here), a little silliness doesn’t hurt.

Flake in fact has indicated just how seriously he takes Gorsuch’s nomination. And his seriousness won’t please Ms. Becky.

But here is the thing: After four days of Senate hearings with this elegant, intelligent constitutionalist, a reasonable person — Ms. Becky in her present state of pique clearly excluded — simply cannot end a Letter to the Editor with this, and not be pegged as a Perpetually Outraged Pod Person:

“Gorsuch is not fit to sit on the Supreme Court. He must be opposed.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Passes Legislation Restoring Integrity to Initiative Process

STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX – Representative Vince Leach (R-11) today applauded the Senate Judiciary Committee for passing legislation (HB 2404) that he’s introduced to restore integrity to Arizona’s initiative process.

HB 2404 would prohibit the payment of petition circulators per signature and modify the number of days from five calendar days to ten business days within which a challenge to the registration of circulators can occur.

“By removing the incentive for fraud, HB 2404 keeps the initiative process intact as a legislative tool for Arizonans yet restores some badly needed integrity to the system,” said Representative Leach.  “I thank my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for their support and look forward to consideration of the bill by the full Senate.”

Former Governor Janet Napolitano first advocated for the reform in 2009, using her State of the State address to ask the legislature to “crack down on signature fraud” by prohibiting the payment of petition circulators per signature.

Senator Sylvia Allen on National Popular Vote

Senator Sylvia Allen

Senator Sylvia Allen (photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

I am getting a lot of email about the National Popular vote asking me to change the way the electoral college works in our state.  How the Electoral votes are appropriated is only one of two of the powers the state Legislators have been given in the US Constitution.  The other is Article V which allows the states to propose amendments to the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote debate is picking up steam since Trump does not have a majority of the total national vote when adding up all votes cast in each state.  Some of the argument is that voters feel their vote does not count and that if your state is not part of the battleground states you are at a disadvantage.  One email said, “I’m tired of hearing that Ohio and Florida are the only states that matter in presidential elections.  What about Arizona?  Our votes should count too…”

I took a very hard look at this issue last session.  I read the National Popular Vote manual and had many discussions with legislators and my constituents.  Here is how I reasoned it out in my mind from the discussions that were held last year, from what I studied and read, and from my understanding of our government.

This national government was created by the states.  Sovereignty is held by the states.  The way to look at the Electoral College is that it is the States electing the president by the majority vote of the people who live in each state.  As in every election cycle, the President is elected by a majority of each state’s electoral votes, which means the majority vote cast by the people in their respective states elected the President by their electoral votes going for that candidate.  When you think about it, this is the way we preserve Federalism.  Looking at the map in any election you will see that the majority of the states, by the majority vote of their citizens, did elect the President.  Arizona did elect the president by the majority vote of our citizens, which means Arizona does count.

A true popular vote will only mean that highly populated states would prevail and the smaller states would not have a voice in the election which would mean that the citizens in those states would be at a disadvantage.

This nation was founded as a Republic using democratic processes to elect our leaders, but we are not a true Democracy.  We are a nation ruled by law the federal and state constitutions. Educating our citizens on the founding principles is so important, as our Founders said, that without it we will not remain free.

Senator Sylvia Tenney Allen serves as President Pro Tempore in the Arizona State Senate. She is a native Arizonan representing Arizona’s 5th Legislative District.

GRAB THE TIN FOIL HATS: McCain Goes Full Birther on Ted Cruz

During an interview on the McCain propaganda machine known as KFYI, Arizona’s Liberal Senator went on a Birther rant against Ted Cruz.

From Buzzfeed:

mccain tinfoil hat

“I know it came up in my race because I was born in Panama, but I was born in the

Canal Zone which is a territory. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was a territory when he ran in 1964.”

Cruz was a U.S. citizen at birth; his mother was a U.S. citizen living in Canada at the time.

… [my birth] was [at] a U.S. military base,” continued McCain about his own birth. “That’s different from being born on foreign soil so I think there is a question. I am not a Constitutional scholar on that, but I think it’s worth looking into. I don’t think it’s illegitimate to look into it.”

 

McCain must be getting old(er) and senile(r) as he must have forgotten that with similar issues being brought up about his own out-of-country birth, Congress passed a resolution that addressed his issues and recognized the pro gun-control McCain as ‘Natural Born Citizen’ thus making him qualified to hold the office of the presidency.

Its understandable that no one will consider the liberal McCain as a Constitutional scholar (see his assault on the 1st amendment McCain-Feingold), but to see him go all in on the Birther conspiracy is a major tactical error considering TeamMcCain has spent much of 2015 trying to paint Kelli Ward as “conspiratorial”.

Now that strategy against Ward will fall flat as the Birther conspiracy is right up there with people who are members of the Flat Earth Society, are 9/11 Truthers, and others who deny the moon landing.

All that said, we’re thankful for missteps like this because they will add up and be the undoing of the Hillary Clinton’s favorite Senator:

For those wondering if Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen, yes he is.  Listen to ‘The Great One’ explain it here.

Alan Korwin: Method for Stopping Shooting Rampages Emerges

By Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman

Alan KorwinHard evidence — not doctor theories, news commentary, conjecture, hyperbole, rumor, innuendo or any other proposals — clearly shows that the only known way to actually stop spree murderers is to shoot them — or scare them into shooting themselves. Time and again society has found this works.

According to the evidence, every mass murder in recent times has been halted, in the final analysis, by shooting the murderers, or threatening to shoot them, with guns. Members of the press corps continue to debate the subject, despite the evidence. Sources speaking privately say the mediaconsciously reject this fact. In stark contrast, self-defense incidents using guns are suppressed, by news-media policy, and do not appear on the public stage.

An excellent write up about the censorship of firearms used in self defense appears here —
http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/usa-today-ad-campaign-features-armed-heroes

and here —
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/09/since-usa-today-wont-publish-good-gun-news-author-alan-korwin-publishes-advertorial-of-good-gun-news

Multiple reports of self-defense, accomplished by shooting criminals, appear as paid space in USA Today, which otherwise censors such reports:
http://www.gunlaws.com/TheFirstRespondersReport.htm

Although knowledgeable commentators are still debating the merits of shooting murderers, the visible evidence clearly demonstrates that shooting the perpetrators does take care of the problem. No other solutions have worked.

The only problem identified is the relative slowness of this effective remedy, due mainly to the delay in getting guns to the scene where innocent victims are assaulted. The scenes have virtually always been in supposed “gun-free zones,” with posted signs flatly rejected by the perpetrators.

President Barack Hussein Obama, whose middle name is not supposed to be used, went on national TV, twice in the past week, to propose other solutions, which he announced as “politicized.” He promised to “continue talking.”

Further analysis conducted by The Uninvited Ombudsman, has determined that background checks, or newly proposed additional background checks, recommended by Mr. Obama and others, would be pointless for people who already own guns, since they already own guns. The best estimates indicate this is about 100 million armed Americans.

And in other analysis conducted by The Uninvited Ombudsman, waiting periods have no meaning whatsoever for Americans who already own guns, when they go shopping for guns, since they already own guns. That is also 100 million Americans.

Waiting periods have one additional drawback overlooked in mainstream reports. They require the public to trust psychotic individuals who wait five days to get their first gun, to remain calm for the balance of their lives. Somehow, the five-day waiting period doesn’t seem like a long enough “cooling off” period, but this has not made it into nightly “news” reports, or the President’s commentaries, for reasons that were unclear at press time.

The murderer in Oregon who sparked the recent repetitive debates owned more than a dozen guns, according to early reports, all legally acquired. While Hillary, Mr. Obama and others are still calling for more background checks, they have apparently failed to notice these obvious errors in their plan.

Only new, or “virgin” gun buyers would be affected, most of whom would pass checks anyway, according to leading experts and past experience. The point of adding even more checks, when current checks are not used to take criminals off the streets, was not clear as this report was prepped for release.

“News” commentators have also failed to make this connection, so far, and have repeated the calls from politicians on both sides of the aisle, who are discussing background checks and waiting periods.

The role of ultra-violent body-rending video games, horrific grizzly blood and all gore movies on nightly TV and a debasement of popular American culture at every level has not figured prominently into the president’s prolific pronouncements.

The public — not some famous vilified “the gun lobby” — rises up loudly to condemn the assault on their fundamental civil and human rights. This is the same 100 million armed Americans mentioned earlier. Some reports suggest it is “only” 80 million armed Americans. The NRA, often cited as “the gun lobby,” has only 5 million members.

Counter-Intuitive Man Says:

Referring to murderers as “gun men” is offensive to men, a violation of journalism ethics, due to its biased and prejudicial nature, and sexist.

Calling murderers “gun men” is virtually propaganda against men and firearms.

It denigrates men, it is derogatory, defamatory and it is discriminatory.

What would media and pundits say if a woman was the criminal perpetrator?

The correct terms include murderer, killer, villain, criminal, assailant and perpetrator, without gratuitously singling out gender.

By using the propaganda term “gun man,” the media vilifies a tool they frequently demonstrate hatred for, along with men, which agenda-driven political groups seek to demean or belittle. That’s simply wrong, and unethical.

Murderers should be called murderers, not gun men. This would help remove the glorification many mass murderers seek, which encourages others to copy their behavior.

By encouraging such behavior, the media shares responsibility for these acts, according to leading national experts, who are speaking out against such behavior in increasing numbers.

Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman
Author of ten books on gun law
Publisher, Bloomfield Press

P.S. My previous request to the President, to have him call me for common-sense solutions he is not getting from his side of the aisle, has gone unanswered so far. I patiently await. The ideas coming from the TV set are so off base it is hard to imagine they are actually on the air. Has anyone considered education in the schools yet? Schools are currently an empty hole of ignorance on the subject.

Aaron Borders Asks for Clergy Rights Bill in Next Arizona Legislative Session

Aaron Borders, Second Vice Chair of the Republican Party of Maricopa County, is asking Arizona legislators to consider a Ministers & Clergy Rights Bill in the upcoming 2016 legislative session.

Borders is not so interested in rehashing the controversy surrounding 2013’s SB 1062 bill as much as affirming right of conscience protections.

In a recent interview, Borders said, “this is a completely separate issue. Now that it’s legal in Arizona to have same sex marriage, it is not my business to interfere. There are clergy in Arizona who will happily perform same sex marriage ceremonies. However, many who have chosen to stand behind their constitutional right to practice and uphold their religion by not performing these marriages feel threatened with lawsuits against them and their congregations and frankly, that requires legal protection. Such a law as a Ministers & Clergy Rights Bill would protect the rights of Arizona ministers and pastors from costly, frivolous and unconstitutional lawsuits that would bring undue hardship on local congregations who are simply excising their religious beliefs in their place of worship.”

Borders is referring to a 2008 account of a lesbian couple in New Jersey seeking use of a beach side pavilion operated by a Christian organization as well as the recent US Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges as reported in Christianity Today.

Aaron Borders is not new to standing up for the First Amendment’s religious freedom. He has been an outspoken Christian activist participating in his local church since he was a boy.

Nearly 15 years ago he and his older brother and one of his sisters recorded a Southern Gospel Record when he was barely 15 years old. He recently performed with his siblings in a ‘reunion of voices’ at the church he grew up in during a visit to Ohio.

Ken Bennet isn’t the only Republican politico who has a love and proclivity for music.

Borders is currently serves as one of the music directors at his local Church in Phoenix. It is a small, but growing congregation in the valley. He also serves as the project manager and building fund raiser for the church.

Aaron Borders stated, “Our congregation is growing and we need to do a solid remodel to make better use of our building to accommodate the growth God has blessed us with.”

Borders also periodically fills in for his 90-year old World War II veteran pastor and bringing sermons before his congregation.

Borders believes that Ministers & Clergy Rights legislation will especially help smaller churches continue to operate without fear of legal threats and lawsuits.

Don’t Embrace Big Federal Government, Support the Compact for a Balanced Budget

By Nick Dranias

Yes, it’s true. The handful of folks who still oppose states organizing behind the Compact for a Balanced Budget to advance and ratify a powerful federal Balanced Budget Amendment embrace big federal government. Of course, they may not mean to do so. But the truth is that by hugging and holding the political status quo, the Balanced Budget Amendment fear-mongers are in a death embrace with the things they claim they oppose.

Why is that? Simply put, we no longer enjoy the form of federal government the Founders originally created. This is because the Constitution as it currently exists has three fatal flaws, which will inexorably lead to tyranny unless they are fixed with a constitutional amendment.

The first is the federal government’s unlimited borrowing capacity. This enables politicians to promise at no immediate cost anything it takes to get elected. That’s like handing liquor and car keys to a teenager. It guarantees a system crash propelled by mindless spending.

The second is unlimited direct taxation authority courtesy of the 16th Amendment. This empowers politicians to make 49% of the nation pay for anything the 51% want; and also to impose complete economic destruction on political enemies and disfavored policy ideas. If this flaw persists, what the IRS did to conservative groups two years ago is just a small taste of what the future holds.

The third is the unlimited concentration of power over national policy making in Washington, DC courtesy of the 17th Amendment. This amendment removed the states from a position of control over the U.S. Senate. It has enabled the federal government to ratify treaties and laws, as well as populate the federal judiciary and federal agencies, without any respect for state sovereignty. And it allows a growing distant political class in Washington, DC to easily leverage overwhelming national power to crush dissent and policy diversity in the heartland.

These three flaws will cause the federal government to gradually accumulate and centralize all political power over time. Over time, these three flaws will make it impossible for limited government and freedom-oriented elected officials to outcompete elected officials who favor big federal government for votes. Consequently, hugging and holding this fatally flawed system is doomed to produce the opposite of freedom. To mix metaphors, voting people in or out of the federal government under these conditions is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Only a constitutional amendment can fix the three fatal flaws of the Constitution as it currently exists. Nothing else will.

But it is irrational to expect two-thirds of each house of Congress to propose the necessary reform. The numbers did not add up in the 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s, and they just do not add up today. Instead, especially after the last election, there is a much more plausible pathway; that pathway involves organizing three-fourths of the states and simple majorities of Congress behind the necessary reform amendment in a targeted fashion. It means supporting the Compact for a Balanced Budget.

Simply put, the Balanced Budget Amendment advanced by the Compact for a Balanced Budget gives us the best shot of addressing each of the Constitution’s three fatal flaws with fundamental reforms.

To fix the flaw of unlimited federal borrowing capacity, the Amendment imposes an initially-fixed constitutional limit on available borrowing capacity. This limit gives the federal government an additional 5% in borrowing capacity above the outstanding federal debt upon ratification. This 5% cushion allows for a 1 to 2 year transitional period to responsible budgeting and fiscal planning. And there is no doubt the amendment will focus the mind during that transitional period. This is because the debt limit is coupled to a mandatory spending impoundment requirement that kicks-in when 98% of the debt limit is reached. Spending will be limited to available tax and fee cash flow if the debt limit is hit. There is no exception except for the referendum process described below. This one reform guarantees that Washington politicians will immediately lose the ability to promise anything at no immediate cost to get elected.

To fix the flaw of the unlimited centralization of national policy making in Washington, the Amendment empowers a majority of state legislatures to veto any increase in the federal government’s constitutionally-fixed borrowing capacity. To get any additional borrowing capacity above the initial constitutional baseline, simple majorities of Congress will have to refer-out a measure proposing the increase. The proposal will be deemed denied unless it is approved by at least twenty-six state legislatures within 60 days of the referral. With the federal government borrowing nearly half of discretionary spending, this referendum process divides power over national policy making between the states and the federal government in a big way.

Finally, to fix the flaw of unlimited federal taxation authority, the Amendment imposes a tax limit requiring two-thirds of each house of Congress to approve any new or increased income or sales tax. The current constitutional rule allowing for tax increases with simple majorities will be restricted to measures that would completely replace the income tax with a consumption sales tax, eliminate tax loopholes, or impose new or increased tariffs and fees. The reform will divert the pressure for new revenue to the places where special interest pushback will be the strongest, further ensuring that deficits are closed by spending reductions first.

National polling shows that each one of these policy fixes are supported by supermajorities of the American people. With Alaska and Georgia already on board, and at least ten states looking to join the Compact this session, the Compact for a Balanced Budget is an eminently plausible route to the reforms we need to save and restore the Republic.

Indeed, with demographic change threatening the supermajorities needed to get the job done, the Compact for a Balanced Budget may be our last best shot at preventing the federal tyranny that will otherwise inevitably result from the Constitution’s three fatal flaws of unlimited debt, unlimited taxation, and unlimited centralization of power in Washington.

Nick Dranias is President and Executive Director of the Compact for America Educational Foundation. Please visit their website at www.CompactforAmerica.org.

Hobby and a Lobby of Glass Houses

By Sam Stone

The liberal angst over the recent Supreme Court decision in favor of Hobby Lobby and other Christian-owned family businesses is rapidly spinning out of control. Critics have accused Hobby Lobby and the Supreme Court of everything short of genocide. Comedian and MSNBC contributor John Fugelsang tweeted that the Hobby Lobby ruling “proves once again that Scalia Law is a lot like Sharia Law”, explicitly comparing the atrocities committed in the name of radical Islam to not requiring someone else to pay for the morning-after pill. That’s ridiculous.

It’s ridiculous in light of what Hobby Lobby really is: one of the best examples of corporate humanity and compassion in this country. It’s even more ridiculous when you compare Hobby Lobby to, for example, Staples – a similar retail business run by founder and CEO Tom Stemberg, who was a significant contributor to President Obama’s campaigns.

Hobby Lobby pays a starting wage of $9.50 per hour for part time employees. Full time employees start at $14 an hour. All employees are eligible to enroll in the company-sponsored health care plan (which covers 16 types of birth control). All employees have Sundays off.

Staples employees often start at whatever minimum wage their local jurisdiction has set. Their average wage for associates is $8.55 an hour. Most associates do not qualify for company-sponsored benefits. Staples is open 7 days a week.

And yet, the left is basically claiming that because Hobby Lobby will only pay for 16 of 20 FDA-approved birth control types, they are the Taliban and the Green family are members of ISIS. What on earth does that make Tom Stemberg and Staples? A Staples employee who doesn’t have company health insurance isn’t getting their morning-after pills paid for by the company, either. Or condoms. Or the pill. Or…you get the picture.

I have a ton of liberal friends and family members who pooh-pooh the idea of a War on Christianity. Frankly, I always have as well. The reaction of liberals and their media allies to the Hobby Lobby case is changing my mind. The mainstream media doesn’t so much as bat an eyelash at the Staples of the world, so long as the plutocrats in charge are willing to keep lining the pockets of liberal candidates (and their own networks). But Christian business owners who pay their employees a living wage and provide healthcare benefits are monsters because they won’t pay for a few specific abortifacients?

Nothing in the Supreme Court ruling or Hobby Lobby’s employee handbook prevents employees from going out and purchasing the morning-after pill for themselves. But, apparently, none of this matters so long as liberals can use the ruling to perpetuate a mythological conservative “war on women” that exists mostly in the minds of the Sandra Fluke’s of the world. Perhaps, instead, they should take a look at their own glass houses.