So, first and foremost, let us recall POTUS's brilliant words that if you are a small business owner, you "didn't build that [business]" because the federal government or some public teacher did. What?! How utterly absurd. Highways didn't develop until Henry Ford began mass producing cars. The internet may have been born, technically (kind of), from U.S. military application but civilians showed the government how to use it and the potential for its use. Moreover, the computers that lead to the development of said internet started off with private citizens more so than any government action. So, using POTUS's logic, the private individual is responsible for all that the federal government has done since 1941 give or take a few years.. A computer created/exploited the internet, so the computer gets all the credit right? Of course the foolishness of this intellectual gibberish is beyond the mental faculties of a union minded, big government person... Meahhh... so be it. Here is POTUS's reasoning summed up by one very clever individual (and which I find utterly hilarious):
"How about that Michael Phelps? [TCD Edit- THE Greatest Olympian Ever] But let's remember he didn't win all those medals, someone else did. After all, he and I swam in public pools, built by state employees using tax dollars. He got training from the U.S.O.C. and ate food grown by the Department of Agriculture. He should ... share his medals with people like me, who can barely keep [their] head[s] above water, let alone swim."
In other news, Amtrak managed to lose over $800 million selling cheeseburgers and sodas. Despite the fact that a burger will cost you over $9 as a rider, they still managed to lose another $7 on top of that. Amtrak riders also pay roughly $2.00 for a Pepsi but each of these sodas cost the U.S. Treasury $3.40.... [You will note that ] Amazon.com is currently selling 24-packs of 12 ounce Pepsi cans for $8.94 -- which averages to about 75 cents per can." "How in the heck is it possible for Amtrak to screw up so bad," you ask? Because the federal government is REALLY good at running businesses and in doing all things basically. Way better in fact than say, Chick-Fil-A...
Which leads us to this story: Mayors and city councilman/alderman have recently vowed to exclude Chick-Fil-A from their communities after the privately-owned company's president expressed his belief that marriage should be defined as it is in the Bible (and which also happens to be the federal law, for the record). Chick-Fil-A, as an organization, also donates to several non-profit groups that discourage homosexual lifestyles and/or gay marriage. As a result, Dan Cathy's views have been dubbed "hate speech" and "bigotry." Simply holding a different opinion about something is not "hate speech" but in this day and age anything with a Christian perspective IS considered hate speech so, maybe, under modern terminology it technically is... (of course, in which case, the belief that one should "love thy neighbor" is also hate speech... technically) To come to this "hate filled" conclusion we obviously must ignore the fact that Chick-Fil-A gladly serves homosexuals in their restaurants, hires them as employees and allows them to advance within the company.
(More After The Jump)
Nevertheless, people like Rahm Emanuel are using this as a political tool to exclude job creating businesses from extremely under-employed areas. Beyond that, they are abusing the local government's authority to supplant personal views in the community. Is that the proper function of government? Political activism in otherwise private affairs, simply because a person holds a religious belief that is different from yours? Who knew you had to hold a completely homogenous political ideology to run a business these days.
Abusing individuals and business because they happen to believe differently than you do -- but otherwise act in accordance with the law -- is a very destructive approach to governmental administration. The political views of Chick-Fil-A are being expressed and applied in a non-discriminatory manor as far as their public activities are concerned. As a business, they don't discriminate but simply support the belief that marriage is defined as one man and one women, for life. So what. As the far-left often says, if you don't believe in one man, one woman marriages, don't have one... Err, something like that. I commend the honest homosexuals in our country who see this as an attack on freedom of speech, personal beliefs, religious intolerance AND what should be viewed as, otherwise, personal liberties. The Dean of the Scheller College of Business at the Georgia Institute of Technology is correct and a very respectable person it seems (who also happens to be gay). I couldn't agree with him more. Let personal freedom expand, let ideas compete openly and allow businesses to conduct themselves as they please so long as they aren't actively discriminating. Private individuals can combat those perspectives as they see fit but usurping their individual power and abusing government to punish a company for expressing an opinion that is not illegal, is simply wrong. That approach is most certainly not what the Founders envisioned for our country and it leads to a very dangerous situation where the freedom of thought or belief is suppressed.
Last but not least, in the "yeah we know" category of news, is the fact that Iran is still insane, wants Israel removed from the planet Earth and jews otherwise annihilated.
Israel, in somewhat "yeah we know" news has responded by saying, "Iran, you're probably going to get your rear-ends kicked before the year is over."
No comments:
Post a Comment