The TIME Magazine Cover Meant to Describe Trump’s Treatment of Immigrant Children is, SHOCKER, a Lie

There’s a reason there’s a massive breakdown of trust in the mainstream media, and TIME magazine has demonstrated why with gusto.

As you’ve likely seen, since the cover has been spread to the four corners of the Earth for everyone to outrage over, TIME released a photoshopped image of a crying girl from the border staring at Trump, who is looking down at her seemingly uncaring.

But as it turns out, TIME’s super-duper thought provoking cover is based off a complete lie. Greg Pollowitz dissects it best in one tweet.

That’s right. The girl in the photo was not at all separated from her mother, and never was. According to the Daily Mail, they’re still together and doing fine.

The mother, Sandra Hernandez, 31, and their two-year-old daughter Yanela Denise are from Honduras. According to the Daily Mail, the duo attempted to cross into America against the father’s wishes, and apparently Sandra told few she was leaving. She left behind two other daughters, and reportedly, the family didn’t even get to say goodbye.

The way the media portrays it, Trump and the Republicans are callously separating children from their parents, and putting them in Auschwitz like conditions. This is not true. The children who are separated are actually well taken care of, and are not separated indefinitely. In fact, the conditions have improved since Obama took over, and they resembled more of a prison-like atmosphere during his time.

This is not to say that the separation of children and parents is horrible, but America’s policies were very well defined. If you go to prison, you can’t take your children with you, and that even goes for American citizens.

As National Border Patrol Council spokesman Chris Cabrera, the parents who attempt to make the illegal trek put their children in all sorts of danger. Some of the children that come to the border aren’t even accompanied by their own parents. Sometimes they’re people paid to get others across the border. Sometimes, they’re sex traffickers.

As Cabrera noted, while the detention of the children isn’t at all ideal, sometimes it’s necessary. If the press would report like it should, then America would have a much better idea of the problems we’re dealing with, and act accordingly. Instead, we get things like the TIME magazine cover, which tells an incomplete story in order to generate a biased narrative.

This solves nothing, and this is why we don’t trust the press.

The post The TIME Magazine Cover Meant to Describe Trump’s Treatment of Immigrant Children is, SHOCKER, a Lie appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Disney Puts Star Wars Spinoffs On Hold After Solo Tanks, but the True Blame Lies with the Main Films

I’m going to start by saying that if you haven’t if you haven’t seen the Star Wars “Solo” film yet, then I feel you should. It wasn’t at all awful, and the story was a pretty solid one. I have my complaints, but they didn’t necessarily ruin my overall enjoyment of the film.

But regardless of the fact that the film was not at all bad, it still under-performed in the markets. As the Daily Wire has reported, the film is yet to make half of its $375 million budget back. The shock of Solo’s lackluster return has caused Disney to put the “Star Wars Stories” on hold in the mean time.

While I was hopeful for the announced Boba Fett movie, my reaction to the announcement that they wouldn’t keep going was oddly one of relief. Understand that I love Star Wars, but I’d rather love it for it was, not what it is.

But what is it’s problem? What did Solo do wrong?

Nothing major. I have some nitpicks as to the character choice for Han Solo, and the politicization of the droids, but otherwise, the movie was relatively solid. Same can be said for Rogue One before that. A solid movie that had a very “Magnificent 7,” doomed hero feel to it.

The problem isn’t necessarily with Solo or Rogue One, but with the main story. At this time, the Star Wars films currently being made with Kathleen Kennedy at the helm are a despicable mess laced with political messaging and nods to the cause du jour. The galaxy far, far away feels too close to home, and it contains all the most annoying parts of it.

For one, many Star Wars fans find it odd that Daisy Ridley’s character “Rey” is somehow so powerful with the force that she can defeat everyone she comes across, be they a highly trained Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) or the most powerful Jedi living, Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamilton) in single combat. Rey’s character is the ultimate Mary Sue who, if not for her supporting cast, would be a boring character. She can do all and defeat all. Her character arch is relatively shallow, and too often anticlimactic.

And while J.J. Abrams’ “The Force Awakens” was essentially a predictable rehash of “A New Hope,” it was Rian Johnson’s “The Last Jedi” that really had fans heading for the exists. Horrible plot direction, shoe-horned in characters, and the heinous misuse of established characters had fans in a virtual riot. Luke Skywalker was nothing like the character we had grown up with, Rey was far more powerful than she had any right to be given her single day of training, and Admiral Holdo (Laura Dern) may be a ridiculous character I wish never existed on par with Jar Jar Binks.

Even Hamill couldn’t hold back his disdain for Johnson and the direction of the movie during the filming, and consistently expressed it in interviews. One such interview was during SXSW, where Hamill makes it a point to highlight how Johnson’s philosophy for the movie was to kill the past, and even going so far as to write that into Kylo Ren’s lines, to which Johnson agrees and says “I’m trying.”

The problem is, the past is where the answer lies for the franchise’s success, and yet the people continuing on the legacy have no respect for the place Star Wars came from. They would rather treat the old characters as disposable, and push forward with the new cast, half of which is comprised of dismissible characters.

Also, as Ben Shapiro wrote accurately, much of the blame for the failure of the modern Star Wars films lies in its social justice adherent producer Kathleen Kennedy, who is so focused on creating strong female characters that she forgot to create good ones.

The reception for TLJ was so horrid that now producer Abrams came to the films defense and blamed the hatred for it on — and I’m not kidding — misogyny. Abrams kicked a hornets nest here, and ended up making it even worse, and confirming far too many fears surrounding the film moving into a social justice political realm. He just made it so much worse.

(If you’d like to read my response to Abrams, as well as some further critiques to TLJ, please follow the link here.)

All of this has left an overwhelmingly bitter taste in the mouths of Star Wars fans. As I’ve covered ad nauseum, introducing politics into the realm of escapism results in people turning away and finding something better to do. This applies to anything from sports, to shopping. Star Wars fans don’t want social justice in the movies, and the results of them forcing it down our throats is that many have turned away.

Solo — not a bad movie for all intents and purposes — went largely ignored likely due to the fact that many don’t want to reward Disney for turning a beloved franchise into a sad pile of bad stories, bad characters, and political messages. On top of that, they’re afraid that if they go to another Star Wars movie they’ll just have their heart broken again, and the fandom has had that happen one too many times, ever since the prequels.

If you ask me, it sounds like Disney execs put the wrong films on hold. Rogue One and Solo were just fine. What they need to do is reexamine what they’re doing with the main films, fire those who are poisoning it (Kennedy and Abrams) and push forward with a fresh, clean slate that will deserve the respect of fans both new and old.

If they don’t, then Star Wars will die a tragic but well deserved death within the American film legacy.

The post Disney Puts Star Wars Spinoffs On Hold After Solo Tanks, but the True Blame Lies with the Main Films appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


SHOCK: CNN Confronts Sputtering Dem Over Lack of Outrage On Immigrant Children During Obama Years

I’m just as surprised as you are, but it actually happened. CNN actually cornered a Democrat on something, and made them look foolish.

Hostess Brooke Baldwin confronted Wisconsin Democrat Sen. Tammy Baldwin about her lack of outrage during the years former President Barack Obama was in office.

Was resulted was Baldwin devolving into a sputtering, unsure mess as she did her best to provide the highest quality word vomit that allowed her dance around the issue.

After pushing out a nonsensical sentence about making progress and stalling, Baldwin the reporter pressed the question again. Once again, Senator Baldwin did her absolute best to avoid the question, and once again sputtered herself into a corner about needing to do something about this in unison.

Since Sen. Baldwin wouldn’t answer the question, allow me.

No. No, she did not raise her voice when it was happening under Obama. That would have been akin to heresy at the time, and would have likely made her very unpopular both among her fellow Democrats, and the voters.

And so, Baldwin kept her mouth shut about all the crying children in cages she is now so outraged about today.

And this can be said for almost every Democrat who was in office at that time. There was no outrage from leftists, no breakdown into tears from Rachel Maddow, no TIME magazine covers that showed Obama staring down at a crying child.

In one fell swoop, CNN — of all networks — and Brooke Baldwin exposed a massive hole in the Democrats strategy. They knew when they were in charge, and yet were silent. For all the outrage surrounding Donald Trump, this is the one hole in the narrative that is too huge to cover up, even for a mainstream media outlet.

I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but well done CNN. In one fell swoop, you showed us that there is still something akin to reporting at your network.

The post SHOCK: CNN Confronts Sputtering Dem Over Lack of Outrage On Immigrant Children During Obama Years appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Border Patrol Agent Teaches CNN Just How Ignorant the Network is About Migrant Children

CNN has, as per the usual, displayed a sense of moral superiority when it comes to the border issue. The network’s unending finger wagging at Trump and Republicans has made themselves believe their own propaganda, and now they think they know what’s best when it comes to any issue.

This was on full display on Wednesday as CNN host Brooke Baldwin had border patrol agent and National Border Patrol Council spokesman Chris Cabrera on her show to answer for the way border patrol agents were treating small children who were separated from their families.

Before bringing him on, Baldwin played audio of children crying and a border patrol agent commenting that they had an orchestra in need of a conductor. Baldwin then asked Cabrera to answer for this seemingly callous response to crying children, to which Cabrera proceeded to remind her that the media is not there all the time, and they don’t see what they see. The guard was likely trying to make the best of a bad situation, noted Cabrera.

“I don’t think everybody understands what’s happening down here. You know, a lot of these kids that are coming here, and put through terrible, terrible situations by their parents; they are brought over in extremely dangerous conditions, in extremely dangerous terrain, and all this can be avoided if they just go through the port of entry. There would be no crime committed by them and they wouldn’t get separated. Why they don’t do this is beyond me,” explained Cabrera, adding, “As we all know, when you get arrested, you don’t get to stay with your family.”

Cabrera also noted that this situation at the border isn’t anything new, and has was implemented years ago, and that the conditions under how the kids get here illegally are far worse than when they’re detained.

“When you see a 12-year-old girl with a Plan B pill, or their parents put her on birth control because they know getting violated is part of the journey, that’s just a terrible way to live. When you see a 4-year-old girl traveling completely alone with just her parents’ phone number written across her shirt. I mean, come on now, something needs to be done,” he said. “We had a 9-year-old boy last year have heat stroke in front of us and die with no family around, and that’s because we’re allowing people to take advantage of this system.”

Baldwin didn’t relent, however, and made Cabrera reassure Americans that they were taking care of the kids. Cabrera reminded her that the men of the border patrol are human beings just like everyone else, and likely have more sympathy than the vast majority of Americans safely outraged in their living rooms.

“I can tell you with absolute certainty they’re being treated humanely,” he replied. “Most of our agents are parents. I’ve seen guys, and I’ve done it myself, you give your last bottle of water to a kid, you’ll take a toy out of your car to give to one of these kids because you know the situation they’re in. Agents are very sympathetic. We’re human, we’re fathers, we have families. We do a lot for the communities here, whether or not a camera is involved. Our agents are very involved. And nobody saves more lives along the southwestern border than the U.S. Border patrol.”

(h/t: DailyWire)

The post Border Patrol Agent Teaches CNN Just How Ignorant the Network is About Migrant Children appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Canada Detains Children In Worse Conditions than America Under Trudeau, but No Trump Means No Outrage

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau doesn’t know how easy he has it.

The ridiculously leftist Prime Minister can literally do the same thing Trump does, and get zero heat for it. This might be because former President Barack Obama did the same thing, but I digress.

Right now the world is up in arms over the detention of illegal immigrant children away from their families. Many on the left and the right have called this a cruel practice, with some comparing it to Japanese internment camps, or even Nazi death camps. Both assertions are beyond asinine. Separating children from their parents is heartbreaking, and everyone wishes it could be avoided, but when following the letter of the law, this kind of thing happens.

Trudeau decided he himself was going to weigh in, and denounced Trump’s America for doing such a horrid thing. He added that this is not the way things are done in Canada.

“What’s going on in the United States is wrong,” said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Wednesday. “I cannot imagine what the families are going through. This is not how we do things in Canada.”

Only, as it turns out, that’s totally how they do things in Canada according to the CBC:

But Canada has also detained migrant children — and in some cases, has restricted access to their asylum-seeking parents — despite its stated policy to do whatever possible to avoid it.

Last year, 151 minors were detained with their parents in Canadian immigration holding centres.

Eleven others were held in custody unaccompanied by an adult, according to the Canada Border Services Agency. The CBSA would not speculate on the circumstances surrounding why a minor was unaccompanied.

What’s more, the children are held in prison like conditions that the CBC described as “frightening.”:

The holding centres, which are off limits to the public, resemble medium-security prisons. They are surrounded by razor-wire fences and kept under surveillance by guards.

There are three such facilities across Canada, in Vancouver, Toronto, and Laval, Que. In some provinces, asylum seekers are detained in prisons.

A recent McGill University study found that detention can be a “frightening experience” for children, leaving them with “psychiatric and academic difficulties long after detention.”

Inside, boredom is “pervasive,” as children are often left “idle, sleeping or lying on the couches for long periods during the day.”

The CBC notes that the average time a child is kept in detention was for 13 days, but that number can vary significantly. One recorded case had a six-year-old girl detained for more than six months.

It’s hard to reinforce border laws and maintain security while simultaneously making sure everyone is as happy as they can possibly be, but the reality of law enforcement is that you’re going to be left with a lot of unhappy people.

Oddly, there seems to be more unhappiness about who is enforcing the law, rather than the law itself.

Very…very odd.

The post Canada Detains Children In Worse Conditions than America Under Trudeau, but No Trump Means No Outrage appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Southern Poverty Law Center Faces Dozens of Lawsuits from Organizations It Falsely Labeled as Hate Groups

The Southern Poverty Law Center has been viewed by the left as a reputable source for knowing who is, and who isn’t a neo-Nazi. The best part, at least for the left, is that the SPLC is very loose with the term.

If the left doesn’t like anyone, they can officially peg them as a hate group with the help of the SPLC. The left gives the SPLC this honor because…it can. There’s no real basis for the SPLC being the end-all-be-all when it comes to officially labeling someone a hate group, it just says what the left likes to hear, and thus is an important part of societal recognition of evil people.

But now, the SPLC may be paying for their casual use of comparing people to Nazis.

Recently, the SPLC $3.3 million settlement with Quilliam Foundation founder Maajid Nawaz, a group the SPLC had thrown into the Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists. Nawaz is simply an Islamic reformist, and former extremist. Oddly, his position against Islam’s current form earned him the title of extremist himself by the SPLC.

How a Muslim wanting to turn Islam away from female genital mutilation, oppression of women, horrific punishments for even violating the most picayune law, and brutal death sentences is an anti-Muslim extremism, the SPLC doesn’t say. Nawaz is anti-Muslim an extremists, and that was that.

But Nawaz didn’t take it lying down, and he went after the SPLC. Before anything even got to court, the SPLC buckled, apologized, and awarded Nawaz his millions.

And that opened the floodgate. According to PJ Media, over 60 groups that the SPLC has attacked in the past are considering going after the leftist group for libel in the same way Nawaz did:

No fewer than 60 organizations branded “hate groups” or otherwise attacked by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) are considering legal action against the left-wing smear factory, a Christian legal nonprofit leader confirmed to PJ Media on Tuesday. He suggested that the $3 million settlement and apology the SPLC gave to Maajid Nawaz and his Quilliam Foundation on Monday would encourage further legal action.

“We haven’t filed anything against the SPLC, but I think a number of organizations have been considering filing lawsuits against the SPLC, because they have been doing to a lot of organizations exactly what they did to Maajid Nawaz,” Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, told PJ Media on Tuesday.

Even if just a handful of these groups go after the SPLC, it’ll teach the organization that throwing around hateful labels is worth more consideration than just seeing that it opposes the current leftist cause célèbre. It’s done so with abandon to very innocent people.

This includes such people as Christina Hoff Sommers who, according to the SPLC, is an anti-feminist voice who gives “the men’s rights movement a veneer of even-handedness.” Right off the bat, you’ll notice that the SPLC takes the side of feminism, and argues that Sommers is akin to a men’s rights activist.

Anyone can look to see that a good majority of the men’s rights movement isn’t at all evil, and have a lot of valid points to make, but add to the fact that Sommers is a very factually driven, kind, and honest woman and you see gaps in the SPLC’s logic. Regardless, the SPLC has thrown her and any men’s rights activist into the column of gender KKK.

To make matters worse, the SPLC has thrown Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an anti-Sharia activist who speaks out against the violence of women by Islamic extremism, into the category of anti-Muslim extremist alongside Nawaz.

Ali responds to the SPLC’s foul move of labeling her as such in the NYT:

Yet the S.P.L.C. has the audacity to label me an “extremist,” including my name in a “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists” that it published on its website last October.

In that guide, the S.P.L.C. claims that I am a “propagandist far outside the political mainstream” and warns journalists to avoid my “damaging misinformation.” These groundless smears are deeply offensive, as I have dedicated much of my adult life to calling out the true extremists: organizations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. Yet you will look in vain for the S.P.L.C.’s “Field Guide to Muslim Extremists.” No such list exists.

 The point of throwing the “hate group” label around is, as former SPLC spox told a crowd one day, to completely destroy the groups it labels.

“Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate groups, I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, completely destroy them,” Potok said.

Rest assured, the SPLC is far more intolerant of others opinions than many of the groups they arbitrarily label as intolerant and hateful. If any organization needs to be destroyed, it’s the SPLC.

The post Southern Poverty Law Center Faces Dozens of Lawsuits from Organizations It Falsely Labeled as Hate Groups appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


The Attack On Masculinity is In Full Swing, but It Will Ultimately Fail

In April the University of Texas began a program called UTMasculinity, which sought to help its students develop a “healthy sense of masculinity” and “address interpersonal violence, sexual assault and other issues.”

You can already see where this is going.

The program was meant to redefine what masculinity is and posted pictures featuring students talking about how it’s okay to be masculine while wearing makeup and dresses.

After a few conservative sites pounced on it and explained that it treated masculinity as a mental health issue, UT ended up taking the program down and is currently putting it through review. Now in the later part of June, the program is still being reviewed. However, what they did end up doing was releasing a statement more or less aimed at conservatives defending the program’s intent, and attempting to dismiss the idea that they were treating masculinity as anything like a mental illness:

Like other UT programs related to sexual assault and interpersonal violence, MasculinUT is housed administratively in the university’s Counseling and Mental Health Center. Its goals include helping men explore ways to reduce sexual violence, helping students take responsibility for their actions, and fostering healthier relationships on campus and beyond.

The problem is that the program was treating masculinity exactly like a mental illness. You can’t peg masculinity as the cause of “interpersonal violence, sexual assault and other issues,” and then wish to fundamentally redefine it unless you were finding something seriously wrong with it.

But UT’s anti-masculinity program isn’t the first attack on masculinity and it won’t be the last. Everyone from the fashion industry to the mainstream media have been celebrating the fem-ification of masculinity by attempting to normalize men having womanly tendencies. A perfect example cropped up recently during a fashion show which had the NY Post writing “men are wearing miniskirts now.”

This is a continuous trend in today’s society. In the mainstream, masculinity is attacked while throwing men in miniskirts and saying it’s okay to be women is celebrated. In order to diminish, or attempt to eliminate masculinity, it’s detractors have put the blame on it for every societal ill possible from gun deaths to lack of women in certain fields.

With masculinity the villain of our time, men have begun to suffer. Men make up over three quarters of all suicides, and the rate is increasing alongside the growing hostility toward them. Boys are treated like defective girls, and are punished whenever they act as boys do. In too many cases, boys are drugged into compliance through the too often unnecessary use of Ritalin-like drugs.

This elimination of masculinity is being done through something along the lines of a sort of sexual Marxism. The “everyone is the same despite their obvious differences” outlook. This kind of demonstrably false assertion creates an avenue for anti-masculinity groups to claim that women are men too, and are sometimes more manly than men are because…reasons.

But they aren’t men. They can never be men. They can have man-like traits, but they cannot be men. Not only does biology make this very clear, more importantly, women do.

As studies, all of history, and even casual observation can tell you, women prefer masculine men to feminine men.

One study from the University of Glasgow in May, and one from the Coventry and Aberystwyth universities last November both concluded that the more masculine a man was, the more women were attracted to them.

As it turns out, a few years of social justice groups attempting to destroy biological norms that have been programmed into us for thousands on thousands of years isn’t working out. Women still want men. Not people who identify as men, but strong, confident, and competent men. They want that kind of man, because biologically, women do not generally want to take on masculine roles.

Mainstream attempts to diminish masculinity and force the gaps on women, which SocJus groups paint as “empowerment,” have left women ultimately unhappy. In fact, according to Gallup, women’s unhappiness with their position in society is on a shocking rise.

At some point, something has to break. Neither men or women can accept this emasculation of society on both a biological level level, or a societal one. Masculinity is a necessity for both the healthy propagation of our species, and societal upkeep. While it’s often blamed for societal ills, in truth, masculinity is the quality within humanity that keeps these ills in control. It is, by nature, a shaping force.

This is why masculinity is not wearing dresses and makeup, or acting like women. It’s rough, hard, brutish, and dangerous. That is true. But these qualities are not bad in themselves. They are a neutral force that when utilized for good, creates and maintains marvels.

The post The Attack On Masculinity is In Full Swing, but It Will Ultimately Fail appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


To the HuffPo Writer Drawing Battle Lines Between Chick-fil-A and LGBT: You Already Lost

It’s not just because Chick-fil-A’s food is as top-notch as their service, either.

It’s because this kind of all-or-nothing, unnecessarily angry attitude HuffPo writer Noah Michelson has struck is the equivalent of the guy who takes it too far after hearing his group voice their frustrations. The kind of guy who, after hearing his friend say they’re going to head down to City Hall and give those politicians a piece of their mind, pipes up and shouts “and then we’re gonna kidnap the mayor!”

Lighten up, Francis.

Michelson penned an article for HuffPo titled “If You Really Love LGBTQ People, You Just Can’t Keep Eating Chick-fil-A.” The article consists of Michelson essentially telling the world that they must pick and choose either their love of the the Christian chain’s amazing food and service, or the LGBT community.

Michelson’s anger is apparently running the show in his mind’s eye, as he confesses to finding — and seemingly enjoys finding — boogiemen in every establishment, group, and product on God’s green, chicken-y Earth:

Any effort or energy you dedicate to not filling Chick-fil-A’s queerphobic coffers does not compromise your ability to simultaneously do the same with other opponents. Surely, like me, you have enough ― and are, sadly, constantly generating more ― outrage to spread around whenever and wherever it may be needed.

This singular paragraph gives you a pretty good idea about how Michelson views the world. He’s a one man army out to expose every sin, and lead the cavalry against it, and he’s drawing battle lines in pretty over-dramatic fashion.

Ultimately, if you’re going out of your way to find a reason to continue to patronize Chick-fil-A, you might want to examine why you need to expend so much energy to do so.

No one likes to hear that they’re doing something wrong ― or that they can’t have something that brings them immense pleasure ― but that’s still exactly what I’m telling you.

It’s time to choose where your loyalties lie ― with your community or with your stomach. I’m hoping you can find another restaurant to satiate your chicken sandwich cravings. If all else fails, there’s always this recipe to make a copycat version of the Chick-fil-A favorite at home. Sure, it won’t be exactly the same but it’s pretty damn close, and I promise it’ll go down a whole lot easier without all of that nasty queerphobia you’ve been ingesting.

Before I continue, I’d like to encourage Michelson, and anyone else who likes to throw terms around with “phobia” attached to them to learn what the word actually means. Pairing words with “phobic” is a sensationalist way of making your opponent seem like they have an inconsolable fear of whatever group you’re sicking on them. I have never met anyone so mind-numbingly afraid of anyone from the LGBT community that they break down into fear driven hysterics. Just stop.

Continuing on, poor Mitchelson thinks he’s making some sort of bold statement by forcing his readers to choose a side, but what he really did was expose how shallow he is.

Mitchelson is falling into the bad habit of putting everyone in hyper-loyal tribes. You’re either a friend of this community, or you are a part of this community. Anything outside it is the enemy.

The problem with this kind of line-drawing is that it only makes room for boxed-in thinking. It essentially asks every person to leave behind his or her own personal experiences and preferences to fall in line with the body politic. It doesn’t matter what you as an individual thinks, or believes. It’s Nerf or nothing.

So if you’re a gay man who loves him some chicken biscuits in the morning with his family, that’s too bad. You’re just going to have to disconnect from your loved ones. According to Mitchelson, their patronage of a Christian based chain is them choosing chicken over you, and you must be one with your “community.”

Thing is, the “LGBT community” is a very loose term used to collectively describe the homosexual population. It’s not an actual community. A group of LGBT people may get together and call themselves a community, but to say that every homosexual person belongs to one community is like saying ever homosexual individual thinks, acts, and holds the same beliefs.

They don’t. Having one thing in common, even if that thing is high-profile, does not make everyone so monochromatic. Since Mitchelson’s article has made the rounds, I’ve seen plenty of LGBT people mock our HuffPo hero to next Thurdsay, and swear that they’re going to hit up the nearest Chick-fil-A as soon as they can. These are the same people who keep Christian friends despite the fact that they know how they feel about homosexuality. In fact, some of these LGBT folk sign on to Christianity themselves.

Unlike Mitchelson, most of the world has the ability to feel and think a certain way, and hang out around those that feel different, or even opposite what they do. They can be homosexual and joyfully eat it with their straight, Christian friend. I know this can happen, because I’ve been that friend.

Chick-fil-A is a place that brings joy. Being with friends and family brings joy too. People want to experience and share joy. Chick-fil-A already has the upper hand. What Mitchelson focuses on, and what he seems to be promoting, is anger toward and rejection of things that don’t meet his criteria.

This is why Mitchelson will find his ranks vastly outnumbered by those who continue to visit Chick-fil-A. Misery loves company, but hardly anyone actually likes misery. His “community” is an over-dramatic buzzkill.

I’ll keep eating Chick-fil-A, hanging out with my LGBT friends, and not be a part of “communities” that tell people they hate groups because some HuffPo writers says so.

The post To the HuffPo Writer Drawing Battle Lines Between Chick-fil-A and LGBT: You Already Lost appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


If Andrew Garfield Demands Christians Bake the Cake, I Demand He Make Commercials for Jack Phillips’ Bakery

For all the open-mindedness Hollywood stars seem to have, they don’t seem to be able to perceive their own beliefs in a complete and well thought-out fashion.

This can be seen recently in the way Family Guy creator, Seth MacFarlane, thought that bringing back the fairness doctrine was a solid idea, as it would force any conservative minded outlet to balance its rhetoric with statist outlooks. Of course, MacFarlane didn’t really think it out. He heard the word “fair,” and didn’t consider the fact that this would open the door for anyone to force their ideas onto the stage out of “fairness.” This includes pedophiles, Nazi’s, and people who like toilet paper facing inward.

Fast forward, and we have the “bake the cake” controversy coming to a head with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding on religious grounds. Naturally, the internet erupted, and lines were drawn between those who respect private businesses and the decisions they make, and those who wish to force others to serve others because not doing so is “discrimination.”

Actor Andrew Garfield, most famously known for being Spider Man, seems to be on the latter side.

During his acceptance for an award at the Tony’s, Garfield thanked his colleagues and then proceeded to end with what I’m sure he thought was a positive message.

“We are all sacred, and we all belong. Let’s just bake a cake for everyone who wants a cake to be baked,” said Garfield.

Maybe Garfield thinks he’s being a good guy, but what he’s advocating for is effectively tyranny. Forcing someone to do something against their will, especially using that person’s private business or hobby, isn’t fairness.

That’s slavery.

To help drive this point home, I demand Garfield star in a positive commercial for Jack Phillips’ bakery. If Phillips should be forced to utilize his talents in the interest of equality, then Garfield should be forced to be the spokesman for Phillips’ shop, and espouse the goodness of Christian beliefs.

If Garfield refuses, then he should be sent to re-education training as the Colorado courts attempted to force Phillips into, and be called all sorts of negative things by the officials. If Garfield has a problem with this, then he can take his case all the way to Supreme Court, and attempt to defend his choice about when and where he can use his talents just as Phillips did.

Garfield will do all of this if he truly stands by his belief that people should be forced to act against their will.

I have a very strong inclination that Garfield won’t want to do any such thing, and will throw the greatest of temper tantrums in order to prevent his image, talents, and skills from being thrust into a situation he doesn’t want. Garfield would rather not be a state-enforced slave.

Neither does anyone else. Garfield should keep that in mind the next time he advocates for what he thinks is equality. It’s not equality if someone is subjugated by someone else.

The post If Andrew Garfield Demands Christians Bake the Cake, I Demand He Make Commercials for Jack Phillips’ Bakery appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Being LGBT Isn’t Something to be Proud About, but Individual Accomplishment Definitely Is

I’m told it’s “Pride Month,” which is a time when the LGBT community celebrates being L, G, B, T, or whatever letter you add after that.

And to that, I say…fair enough. Coming together as a community to celebrate your community is nothing new, and there’s nothing wrong with it. So long as you don’t force me to celebrate with you, or issue you the proper respect, “or else,” I don’t care what you do.

But one of the things that does irk me about Pride Month — aside from the hyper-sexual parades that I’ll talk about in a different article — is the idea that during “Pride Month,” people are supposed to be proud of being LGBT.

Perhaps there are many within the LGBT community who look at the term “pride” as a positive outlook on the self as opposed to feeling shame for their homosexuality. To that I also say “fair enough.” No one gets too happy hating themselves, and if you want a better outlook to help you deal with the challenges of life, I definitely recommend happiness and self-acceptance.

But for many in the LGBT community, especially in the activist circles, they mean that you should very literally be proud of being gay or lesbian like it’s an accomplishment. Like you did something to earn the title of “trans” or “bisexual.”

But you didn’t. The general consensus within the LGBT community is that if you fall under any of the letters within the lineup, you were born that way. You didn’t choose it. Being proud of being born gay seems a bit self-aggrandizing when you zoom out of the pomp and circumstance our society puts on being a group like the LGBT community.

I might as well throw parades, and launch massive campaigns celebrating the fact that I have natural brown hair, or that I have 20/20 vision. What if I threw a massive parade over the fact that I was white? People would say the former two were silly, and the third is the second coming of Hitler despite the fact that other groups may take pride in their skin color all the time.

But I digress.

I was born with all of those things, just as the LGBT community says they were born with their sexuality.

My question is, what has your sexuality accomplished personally?

The answer is likely nothing. There’s a very solid chance that your homosexuality didn’t help you land that big job, or accomplish that big project. Your own effort, and hard work did that. Your persistence and navigating yourself wisely accomplished this. In short, YOU did that, not your sexuality.

This was put very well by trans YouTube star Blaire White on Sunday.

Freddie Mercury didn’t become famous because he was gay. He became famous because he made legendary music. Dave Rubin isn’t one of the most famous interviewers alive today because he has a husband. He’s famous because he makes interviews fascinating to watch. The same can be said of Elton John, Sir Ian McKellen, and Neil Patrick Harris. All amazing talents that, if you were to suddenly turn them straight, would still be amazing talents.

Being gay, lesbian, trans, or what have you isn’t exactly something groundbreaking or new. While our society is primarily dominated by heterosexuality, everyone from corporations to television shows make it clear that they are supportive of the LGBT community. Even Chick-fil-A’s CEO, who leads a Christian based company, makes it clear that they have nothing against gays and lesbians, and just hold a different worldview.

I’m not saying that LGBT members don’t still face hardships, and being a member of the LGBT community definitely played a part in shaping your life, but being gay isn’t exactly special in today’s world. It’s a sexuality, not an invention that improves the world like the car, or cookie dough. Having sex with a person who is the same sex as you isn’t worthy of applause. Putting on make-up and saying you identify as a female isn’t helping us cure cancer, or leading us to become a space-faring race.

Curing cancer or inventing the warp drive definitely is something to be proud about. However, if you did that, the first thing I’m going to recognize you for isn’t the fact that you’re homosexual. As I’m zipping around the cancer-free cosmos, I’m not going to be thanking the gays. I’m going to be thanking YOU. The individual.

You are an individual before you are a sexuality, and it’s the individual who succeeds, not the sexuality.

 

The post Being LGBT Isn’t Something to be Proud About, but Individual Accomplishment Definitely Is appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State