Shocking: Christian, family run business espouses Christian, Family Values!

In a recent interview Chik-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy plead guilty to supporting traditional Christian values, stating specifically that his organization believed marriage was forever and between one man and one woman. This naturally was received as a healthy expression of opinion in the public forum. Opponents acknowledged that while they may not agree with Mr. Cathy's opinions, they certainly support his right to have them and proceeded to engage in a courteous dialogue on their differences of opinion.

Hah, just kidding. It actually began a massive firestorm of manufactured outrage at a person who dared to have an opinion contrary to some other people's beliefs. I mean, who is this guy? He treats this like it's his Constitutional right or something!

The actual quote is as follows:

“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 know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Of course, he was wrong on that last part about being able to operate his business as he saw fit. At least, he was in Chicago, where "Alderman Joe Moreno, who represents Chicago's Logan Square neighborhood, plans to use his aldermanic privilege, a Chicago tradition in which City Council members defer to aldermen on local matters, to block the restaurant's permit." For those of you having a hard time understanding this Chicago slang, when they say "a Chicago tradition" they mean "rampant corruption and abuse of power".

Said Joe Moreno:

"It's a very diverse ward-- economically, racially, and diverse in sexual orientation," Moreno told ABCNews.com. "We've got thriving businesses and we want more but at the very least don't discriminate against our LGBTQ folks."

He continued by saying "So, we want to maintain that diversity, unless that diversity means that someone may have an opinion contrary to mine. If that happens, then naturally I'm going to use the power of my elected office to crush their business, despite them not having done anything illegal whatsoever. It's tradition." The mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, has also come down on the fast food chain and is supporting this "tradition".

This sort of action is the height of hypocrisy. The National Review Online made an excellent point:

"Rahm Emanuel has been many things in life — ballet dancer, investment banker, congressman, White House chief of staff, now mayor of Chicago — and he apparently wishes to add another title to his curriculum vitae: Grand Inquisitor. He has denounced the fast-food chain Chick-fil-A and endorsed a Chicago alderman’s plan to block construction of a new outlet because the company’s executives do not share his politics. This is a gross abuse of power: Imagine if the mayor of Provo, Utah, had tried to punish a business for supporting same-sex marriage — the Left would demand his resignation, etc. The powers of government are not to be used for parochial political ends. Even in Chicago."

 Here's the deal: Mr. Cathy didn't "target" gay folks, the so called "LGBTQ...IWHQNDYT" crowd (I added a few more letters since that acronym seems to get bigger every day, and I want to stay ahead of the curve). He targeted the decay of the institution of marriage as he sees it, and said he doesn't approve of it and neither does his organization. That means he was no more "targeting" gay people than he was "targeting" divorced people, of which I am (quite happily) one. There are plenty of good, decent, caring people that do not support same-sex marriage. I used to be one of them, before I was persuaded through reasonable, calm discussion to change my stance.

Even aside from that, why is this a surprise? I mean, who didn't know that Chik-fil-A was a Christian organization? They aren't even open on Sunday! "OMG, I am shocked and outraged that a Christian organization might express traditional Christian values and donate to organizations that share their viewpoint!" said No One, Ever.

We live in a country where you have the right to express your opinion and worship your God as you see fit. We live in a country where you do not (and I cannot possibly emphasis this enough) have the right not to be offended.

If you, as a private citizen, don't like Chik-fil-a's comments, then don't eat there. Encourage your friends not to eat there. Go all Tea Party on them and buy their chicken then throw it into a lake or something. But don't pretend like they crossed some invisible line in the sand by having an opinion and should therefore be banned from your city.

As for me, I don't agree with their opinion, and even resemble the sort of person they disapprove of...but damn, their chicken is good. So I'm going to keep eating it.

Romneycare vs. Obamacare: Distasteful but defendable

Last Thursday the Supreme Court handed down the decision that even though the mandate was not constitutional, they still thought the idea was totally awesome, so they just called the mandate a tax. Bam, problem solved. Well, except for the problem of now giving Congress the unlimited power to levy whatever penalties they like as long as they call them taxes, even if their goal is to raise $0 revenue, but hey, since when has unbridled power been a problem for the government, right?

Needless to say, while the decision was disappointing to say the least to anyone who is a fan of limited government, we did get the consolation prize of being able to slam Obama for clearly and unequivocally raising taxes on...wait for it...

The Middle Class!

For a taste of the beating that ensued, see the video below. Watch it in its entirety. It is a thing of beauty to see how the interviewer slowly backs his opponent into a corner, having him state that the mandate was not a tax, then playing the audio where team Obama argued in the courtroom that it totally was.

Unfortunately, Romney has not really capitalized on this turn of events. The reason? One word: Romneycare.

While Romney was governor of Massachusetts he signed into law a healthcare bill that looks remarkably similar to Obamacare, to include mandates and penalties and exchanges (oh my). Always concerned at being labeled a flip flopper, Romney is torn between defending his past record and by extension Obamacare, or admitting he was wrong and trashing Obamacare, and himself in the process.

Well, Mr. Romney, I don't like what you did in Massachusetts. In fact, my two favorite things about you are your territorial tax system proposal and the fact that you are the most Presidential looking guy EVAH, no homo. But, since you are not, in fact, Obama I will give you an out that apparently every one of your highly paid advisers have failed to discover. The reason they may have overlooked it is understandable. It comes from the Constitution, and I know that you DC folks don't like to pull that thing out much.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Obamacare is exactly the same as Romneycare, because let's face it, you'll never be able to articulate any meaningful differences in the public forum. Even if they are precisely the same down to the last letter, they differ in one extremely important way:

Romneycare was a state action. Obamacare is a federal action.

The 10th amendment, probably my very favorite amendment in the Constitution, states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The power to create a healthcare exchange and mandate people to participate is not included in the Constitution, so therefore that power is reserved to the States. The reason the Obamacare mandate is a tax and Romneycare mandate isn't because "The Supreme Court said so". That is a part of it, but you look like a douche when you say it. The whole reason is that the power to have a mandate is clearly a power of the States, not the Feds. Therefore, Obama is overreaching. He is attempting to seize power for the Federal Government away from the people, in a way the framers never intended. Only by hiding it in the tax code (and therefore raising taxes on millions of Americans) can it even be allowed, and that doesn't make it a good thing.


To condense that into a soundbite sized statement for you, Mr. Romney:

"Romneycare made sense for Massachusetts. What is good for someone living in Massachusetts may not be good for someone living in Virginia, or Texas, or Nebraska. I believe that people are better able to make decisions about their healthcare than the federal government can, and so those decisions should be kept as close to the local level as possible. This sort of power is guaranteed to the States by the 10th amendment, and the President is attempting to circumvent the Constitution, and he's doing it by using the mandate to raise taxes on the hardest hit Americans, the middle class."

Bam. In one go you've defended Romneycare, drawn the distinction between it and Obamacare, defended the Constitution and States Rights, and accused Obama of raising taxes on the middle class without lumping yourself in that same statement. You come out sounding like a paragon for the middle class and conservatives everywhere, a defender of Truth, Justice, and the American Way who probably helps little old ladies across the street right after you kill terrorists by smashing them with your massive testicles, not some weak kneed douchebag who is relying on the Supreme Court to fight your battles.

You're welcome. Please make the check out to Mr. Fluffy.