by Arnold Ahlert:  It is legislation whose time has come. On Monday, Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN) introduced a bill that aims to hold politicians accountable when they allow the progressive agenda to trump the Rule of Law.

          The Stopping Lawless Actions of Politicians Act, a.k.a. the SLAP Act, would impose criminal penalties on state and local lawmakers who refuse to comply with the efforts of federal immigration officers to enforce federal immigration law. Anyone convicted under the statute would be subjected to a $1 million fine, and up to five years in prison.
           “The American people are rightfully infuriated watching politicians put their open-borders ideology before the rule of law, and the safety of the people they represent,” Rokita stated in an email press release. “Politicians don’t get to pick and choose what laws to comply with. Americans are dying because politicians sworn to uphold the law refuse to do so. It’s time the federal government gets serious about enforcing immigration laws and holding politicians accountable who conspire to break them.”
          The last two sentences of that release will undoubtedly resonate with millions of Americans:
          “This elitist mentality that everyone is not equal under the law must come to an end,” it stated. “These politicians want one set of rules for hard working Americans, but a different set of rules for illegal immigrants, and themselves.”
          That would be globalist elites and their legions of activist supporters, all of whom remain firmly convinced that national sovereignty is anachronistic, and that anything resembling the traditional customs and culture that illuminate our nation’s exceptionalism constitute xenophobia or “white privilege.”
          As the adage goes, in politics, timing is everything. Thus it is likely that last week’s acquittal of illegal alien Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, who had been charged with the 2015 murder of 32-year-old Steinle on a San Francisco pier, provided much of the impetus behind the bill.
          Zarate, previously known as Juan Francsico Lopez-Sanchez, is a seven-time convicted felon who had been deported five times. He was released to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by the Federal Bureau of Prisons following the completion of a prison sentence for illegal re-entry on March 26, 2015. He was transferred to the San Francisco County Sheriff’s Department where he faced a 1995 charge for selling marijuana. When that charge was dismissed, he was released — because the Department decided to ignore ICE’s request to detain him for deportation. That decision was engendered by San Francisco’s deplorable “sanctuary city” policy. A policy that codifies defiance of federal immigration law.
          That defiance cost Kate Steinle her life. And while Zarate’s acquittal was a combination of prosecutorial over-reach and possible jury nullification, the lack of remorse remains breathtaking. “From day one, this case was used as a means to foment hate, to foment division and to foment a program of mass deportation,” asserted public defender Francisco Ugarte. “San Francisco is and always will be a sanctuary city,” declared Ellen Canale, a spokeswoman for Mayor Ed Lee.
          No doubt, if city officials can get away with it. During the liar-nObama years, that was a given, courtesy of an administration that sued states like Arizona, South Carolina, Utah and Alabama for attempting to enforce federal immigration law it conspicuously ignored, while never filing a single lawsuit against any sanctuary city that defied the same statutes.
          Moreover, a GOP-controlled Senate, demonstrating its typical lack of backbone, has already avoided the issue. Last June, the House passed both the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act and Kate’s Law. The former authorizes the Justice Department to withhold grants from cities and states that defy federal immigration law and ICE detention requests, while the latter would impose a mandatory minimum jail sentence on illegal aliens convicted of re-entering the United States, along with increased penalties for repeat offenders. Yet when both bills moved to the Senate they failed to overcome Democrat filibusters.
          Moreover, when President Donald Trump issued an executive order to cut funding from cities that refuse to cooperate with the feds, liar-nObama-appointee U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick issued a permanent  injunction against it in November, based on the assertion that an executive order cannot override the Tenth Amendment.
          In other words, it becomes even more imperative for Congress to enact the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act and Kate’s Law, even if it requires GOP Senate Majority Leader RINO-Mitch McConnell to invoke the nuclear option allowing a strict majority vote.
          The reason why is clear. Since 2015, the number of sanctuary cities has increased from 340 in Oct. 2015 to nearly 500 by March 2017. Those cities have released more than 2,000 illegal aliens back onto the streets, defying ICE efforts to deport them.
          Rokita wants to put a stop to that odious dynamic, one that rests on a foundation of pathetic excuses designed to obscure the American Left’s intent to “fundamentally transform” the United States. One excuse is that sanctuary cities are necessary because people here illegally might not report crimes if they think they might get deported as a result. An even worse excuse is that illegal commit less crimes than native Americans and are incarcerated at lower rates.
          Not exactly. In 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Sentencing Commission revealed that more than 13% of those convicted and sentenced for crime in the United States were illegal aliens. Statistics compiled by the FBI and the Government Accountability Office between the years 2003 and 2009 revealed that illegals, who represent 3.5% of America’s total population, committed between 22% and 37% of all murders in the U.S.
          More to the point, every crime committed by an illegal is one that would be wholly avoidable if immigration law was followed. Thus, what sanctuary city advocates are really saying is that a certain level of murder and mayhem is a “reasonable” trade off to maintain what amounts to open rebellion against the federal government.
          Does a GOP-controlled Congress have the stomach for quashing what amounts to de facto anarchy? In a better nation, passing the three aforementioned statutes would be a no-brainer. In this one, a Democrat Party with short-term visions of amnesty that enable long-term visions of turning red states blue will likely stand with illegals — against their fellow Americans.
          Republicans? Whether or not these bills see the light of day in the Senate and garner enough votes for passage will be a defining moment for a party that has allowed itself to be cowed by accusations of bigotry — or has been willing to do the bidding of their pro-amnesty campaign contributors in lieu of standing firm with their base.
          “The death of Steinle and subsequent acquittal of the illegal immigrant charged with her death has reignited a debate over sanctuary cities,” insists  columnist Conor Beck.
          Debate? Going forward, America will either be a nation of laws or a nation of men. In short, America’s ruling class can either pass the SLAP Act — or slap a banana republic onto the backs of the American public.  
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52796

by Political Editors:  Is this where bureaucracy is in the age of the Trump “Resistance”? The New York Times reveals that several employees within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) have formed what they call “Dumbledore’s Army,” a reference to a secretive resistance group in the “Harry Potter” children’s books. According to the Times, these CFPB employees decided to quietly resist Donald Trump’s appointment of Mick Mulvaney as director. The Times reports, “In some cases, conversations between staff that used to take place by phone or text now happen almost exclusively in person or through encrypted messaging apps.” 

https://patriotpost.us/articles/52808

by Jordan Candler:  Back when Republicans were knee-deep in investigating liar-Hillary Clinton’s server misdeeds while she was secretary of state, Democrats were criticizing the GOP’s efforts partly by invoking taxpayer frugality. In January 2016, Rep. Elijah Cummings lamented, “Republicans continue to drag out this political charade closer to the 2016 presidential election, and the American taxpayers continue to pay the price.” And in June 2016, Nancy Pulosi complained, “House Republicans’ Select Committee has now wasted more than two years and $7 million in taxpayer dollars retreading the same facts and conclusions exhaustively detailed in previous congressional reviews.”

          Notice that the Democrat concern over taxpayer waste only ever comes up when Armageddon is approaching or the roles are reversed. For example, The Washington Free Beacon reports, “The special counsel investigation run by Robert Mueller has cost taxpayers more in four months than what the investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attack cost in over two years. Mueller and his team spent $6.7 million between May and September, according to a new report released by the Department of Justice. … The House Select Committee on Benghazi cost $6.7 million over the course of more than two years, according to the Washington Post.”
          Democrats justify their spendthrift ways by arguing the stakes are bigger. Which is of course ludicrous. As secretary of state, liar-Hillary Clinton was intentionally and covertly operating with a private email server to promote her own liar-Clinton Foundation interests. She also oversaw the infamous Uranium One deal with (ahem) the Russians and botched the Benghazi attack response. All of this is just the tip of the iceberg. And Democrats want to complain about the cost? Any rational person would say it’s worth the amount of money it takes to try getting to the bottom of lisar-Clinton’s undeniable pay-to-play schemes. By the way, despite matching the cost of the Benghazi probe in significantly less time, Robert Mueller’s team still lacks proof of Russia-Trump collusion. Talk about an *actual * fishing expedition.
          More proof of leftists’ faux indignation against taxpayer waste is seen in the deficit debate. Barack liar-nObama once derided George W. Bush as “unpatriotic” for his trillions in deficit contributions, but liar-nObama, Harry dinky-Reid and Nancy Pulosi easily surpassed Bush with a trillion-dollar-plus “stimulus,” welfare expansion and the nationalization of health care, to name a few. But today, amid the Republican tax reform effort, they act like they’re balanced-budget saints. In early November, Pulosi scorned Republicans for “still adding trillions to the deficit.” And on Monday, she bemoaned that the GOP tax bills “increases the deficit by so much more.” She added, “It is very hard to come back from this. They take us further, more deeply into debt.” The debt is bloated, for sure. But so is the Democrats’ political posturing.        ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52781 

http://cache2.artprintimages.com/p/LRG/58/5870/QCPSG00Z/art-print/bb-sams-democrats-vs-republicans-july-aug-1980.jpg" border="0" />

by Caroline Camden Lewis:  Open the Books, an organization dedicated to transparency of government spending, tracks and publishes government spending online and serves as one of the largest private databases of government spending in the world. Their motto, “Every dime. Online. In Real Time,” reflects their mission of making government spending transparent and accessible to the public. Open the Books publishes a report every quarter, focusing on an aspect of government spending. Earlier this year, they published an oversight report entitled, “Ivy League, Inc.,” which reveals the government money and tax privileges granted to the eight colleges of the Ivy League: Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University and Yale University.

          The endowments for these universities range from $3.2 billion (Brown) to $35.7 billion (Harvard). As Open the Books Founder and CEO Adam Andrzejewski wryly remarks in Forbes, “Many pundits describe the Ivy League as ‘a hedge fund with classes.’” Open the Books notes that the combined endowments of the universities ($119.4 billion) could fund a full-ride scholarship for all Ivy undergraduate students for the next 51 years. As non-profits, the government does not tax the Ivy League schools on their endowment earnings. So, they not only operate like a hedge fund, but a hedge fund with tax privileges.
          While the Ivy League certainly commits no error in freely raising money from alumni and private donors, the Open the Books report reveals how the Ivy League profits off of taxpayers who pay the Ivy League whether they want to or not. Tracking government payments and entitlements for six years (FY2010-FY2015), Open the Books discovered the total Ivy League cost to taxpayers as $41.9 billion, or about $6.93 billion per year. This number includes payments, subsidies and special tax treatment. In terms of total government money received, 16 states (including South Dakota, North Dakota, Hawaii, Utah, Alaska and Montana) receive less government money per year than the Ivy League does. In other words, entire states take less government money per year than a group of eight universities, each of which have multi-billion-dollar endowments. They don’t need the money, so why are they receiving it?
          Lobbying for their interests seems to be part of the answer. Open the Books reveals that between 2010-2014, the Ivy League spent $17.8 million on lobbying Congress to advocate for their interests. This explains the preference given to the Ivies, and the billions of dollars granted to these institutions in federal contracts, subsidies and tax privileges.
          While government grants and contracts make sense in terms of groundbreaking medical research, they don’t make sense in terms of the unnecessary research funded by the American taxpayer. Consider the following grants:
          $137,530 from the National Science Foundation to Dartmouth College to fund the making of a video game entitled “Layoff.” In this game, the player must fire employees until he or she receives a bank bailout. In the game, bankers are invincible and cannot be fired.
          $53,419 from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to Brown University to study whether homosexual men and male sex workers in Mexico City would decrease the number of sex partners and/or use condoms if the government paid them.
          $5.7 million from the National Science Foundation to Columbia University to develop a website entitled Future Coast. The website allows visitors to leave voicemails describing how they think the world will be changed by destructive climate change in the future (2020-2065). Examples include a dwindling Alaska and a California without water.
          Most people do not object to private research to fund such projects. If a person wants to develop a video game or study sexual habits and incentives of men in Mexico City or listen to fictional voicemails, why not? But these people should do what the rest of the country does: raise capital, fundraise and involve their friends. The American taxpayer should not have to shoulder the cost.
          In fact, the Ivy League receives more money from their government contract “side gig” ($25.27 billion) than they do from student tuition payments ($22 billion). This prompts the question, Is their government contract “business” a higher priority than their students?
          Further, the Ivy League schools receive an enormous $3.7 billion tax break in local government property taxes. Open the Books estimates that with regard to local property taxes, the Ivy Leagues should be paying approximately $617 million per year. However, due to the lost revenue, residential property taxes in the surrounding areas are 20-30% higher. In the case of Princeton University, residents sued the school, and won a settlement of $18 million.
          Ultimately, the Open the Books report on the Ivy League shows taxpayers what has really been happening to their money. While the Ivy League should be able to maintain their status as top universities, the time has come to re-examine how much, if any, government money they should receive.
          When we place all the issues facing our country on the table, government money should be prioritized toward keeping our communities safe and encouraging human flourishing, not toward contributing to the billion-dollar corporatism of the Ivy League. They can do that on their own.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52795

by Lewis Morris:  Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s investigation into wrongdoing by Donald Trump and any campaign or administration officials he deems fit to scrutinize appears to morphing into one of obstruction of justice. Recent developments in the case suggest that Mueller has turned his sights to whether Trump obstructed justice by allegedly pressuring former FBI Director James Comey to drop the Bureau’s investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

          Originally, you may recall, Mueller was tasked with finding collusion between Trump and the Russians into their hacking of the 2016 election. Despite the best efforts of the Left and their friends in the media, that charge has gone nowhere. No evidence has surfaced that Trump colluded with Russia to swing the election in his favor. The indictment of Paul Manafort is based on charges totally unrelated to Trump or the 2016 election, and charges against Flynn are about lying during the investigation, not about illegal deeds.
          Mueller is under pressure to produce something — anything — against Trump. His mandate is open-ended, meaning that if the collusion investigation goes nowhere, then he is free to go in any other direction with his investigation until he finds something. Trump haters are hoping Mueller will find an impeachable offense. Or at the very least, that Mueller’s investigation tarnishes Trump enough to make his re-election impossible.
          This is not how justice is supposed to work. Either a crime was committed or it was not. But in Washington, politics infuses the search for justice, and Mueller is a man on a mission. A mission that is shifting for reasons that seem to have more to do with politics than with the realities of the investigation.
          The Mueller investigation started out not as a normal criminal investigation where a crime has been committed and there is a search for the culprit. In this case, there is an investigation in search of a crime. The Democrats wanted revenge over the 2016 election. Their arrogant worldview was that it was only natural that liar-Hillary Clinton follow Barack liar-nObama into the White House so that the transformation of America into a worker’s paradise could be completed. In their minds, it was not possible that Trump could beat liar-Clinton without breaking the law.
          Yet Mueller’s crack team of Democrat hounds has had a hard time finding a crime related to Trump. With the collusion narrative all but dead, the current pivot to an obstruction of justice charge fills Trump haters with hope. The question now becomes whether Trump obstructed an FBI investigation. If it can be proven that Trump meddled in the FBI investigation of Flynn, then we may be looking at an impeachable offense.
          Sen. Dianne Fein-stein (D-CA) noted earlier this week that the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which she is ranking member, has its own obstruction of justice investigation going against Trump. It’s not known if the Senate is privy to information that the special prosecutor does not have. Of course, any impeachment charge against Trump would have to come from the House (and the first attempt failed miserably Wednesday), but that’s a minor detail considering to what lengths the Left has gone to sabotage Trump.
          The case for obstruction is not off to a very good start though. Comey himself has stated that he did not believe Trump obstructed justice in their discussions over the Flynn investigation. If anything, Trump may be guilty of poor judgment and bad politics in poking his head into the FBI investigation and later firing Comey, but that’s not even close to high crimes and misdemeanors.
          The investigation will continue, however. Whether Trump skates without being charged, or whether the Democrats have their revenge remains to be seen. But make no mistake about this. What is taking place now is not the pursuit of justice, it is Swamp politics, pure and simple.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52800

http://cache2.artprintimages.com/p/LRG/58/5870/QCPSG00Z/art-print/bb-sams-democrats-vs-republicans-july-aug-1980.jpg" border="0" />

by Thomas Gallatin:  The Left loves to reference “power to the people,” but they never mean what they say they mean. Rather it’s a call for greater power and control being given over to government elites; a call to authoritarianism. This leftist sentiment has been on full display since President Donald Trump’s announcement Monday authorizing the scaling back of two “national monuments” in Utah, reversing federal land grabs by Barack liar-nObama and liar-Bill Clinton.

          Bowing to the environmentalist lobby and Native American groups, liar-Clinton and liar-nObama used the Antiquities Act of 1906 to massively expand the Bear Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, located in southeastern Utah. These federal land grabs, totaling over two million acres, have long riled Utah residents, who see this as an example of rule by Washington elites who have little understanding or consideration of local issues. And, by the way, The Daily Signal notes, “Trump’s decision to relabel 2 million acres sounds like a lot until you realize that the liar-nObama administration set aside 554 million acres .”
          In announcing his decision, Trump expressed the feelings of the locals, stating, “Some people think that the natural resources of Utah should be controlled by a small handful of very distant bureaucrats located in Washington. And guess what? They’re wrong. The families and communities of Utah know and love this land the best and you know the best how to take care of your land.”
          Ironically, environmentalist groups and companies sought to paint Trump’s action as exactly the opposite. The Patagonia company asserted on its website, “The President Stole Your Land,” while REI bemoaned the “loss of acres of protected lands.” Talk about your reverse spin.
          What Trump did do was to restore states’ rights, recreational opportunities of outdoor enthusiasts and land usage rights for ranchers and land owners. The land will now revert back to public land regulated by the state of Utah, not a bunch of Washington bureaucrats beholden to the wishes of special interest lobbyists and their dollars.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52753

by Political Editors:  Donald Trump continues to be the antithesis of a do-nothing political leader. Yesterday, some 22 years after the Jerusalem Embassy Act became law, Trump finally declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Trump rightly understands that peace through Jerusalem can be achieved only by exercising Ronald Reagan’s approach to foreign policy: “Peace through strength.” Yesterday’s move definitely puts both Israel and the U.S. in a more fortified position. The following are some important remarks from his speech:
          We cannot solve our problems by making the same failed assumptions and repeating the same failed strategies of the past. All challenges demand new approaches. My announcement today marks the beginning of a new approach to conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In 1995, Congress adopted the Jerusalem Embassy Act urging the federal government to relocate the American Embassy to Jerusalem and to recognize that city … is Israel’s capital. This act passed Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and was reaffirmed by unanimous vote of the Senate only six months ago.
          Yet, for over 20 years, every previous American president has exercised the law’s waiver, refusing to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem or to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city. Presidents issued these waivers under the belief that delaying the recognition of Jerusalem would advance the cause of peace. Some say they lacked courage but they made their best judgments based on facts as they understood them at the time. Nevertheless, the record is in. After more than two decades of waivers, we are no closer to a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. It would be folly to assume that repeating the exact same formula would now produce a different or better result.
          Therefore, I have determined that it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. While previous presidents have made this a major campaign promise, they failed to deliver. Today, I am delivering. I’ve judged this course of action to be in the best interests of the United States of America and the pursuit of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. … This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do. It’s something that has to be done. That is why, consistent with the Jerusalem Embassy Act, I am also directing the State Department to begin preparation to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This will immediately begin the process of hiring architects, engineers and planners so that a new embassy, when completed, will be a magnificent tribute to peace.

Notably, what Trump actually did was sign another waiver while making a very strong commitment to begin the process of moving the embassy. Nevertheless, it’s a good strategic move to make real headway on peace in the region. We will have more to say in a detailed analysis tomorrow. Stay tuned.
          In other news, Barack liar-nObama compared the Trump era to Hitler’s. No kidding.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52799

by Louis DeBroux:  On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Masterpiece Cake shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case with serious implications for religious liberty in the United States.

          At issue is balancing the Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of religion, speech and association with public accommodation laws that prohibit denial of service based on “disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.”
          The facts of the case are straightforward, though often misrepresented. Jack Phillips is the owner of Masterpiece Cake shop in Colorado. A few years ago, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, two homosexual men, were traveling to Massachusetts to get married (this was prior to the Obergefell ruling in 2015), with a reception to be held in Denver. The two approached Phillips about providing a wedding cake, but Phillips politely declined, explaining that his religious convictions prevent him from providing services for same-sex weddings. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Commission on Human Rights, which sued Phillips, eventually winning a ruling that required him not only to provide services for same-sex weddings, but mandating he and his employees undergo “compliance training” (in North Korea this is referred to as “re-education camp”).
          Lest one think Phillips is anti-homosexual, it should be noted he offered to provide a wedding cake to the couple — just not with any customization. In fact, he has served many homosexual clients in the past, and continues to do so. It should also be noted that his religious convictions prohibit him from providing cakes for Halloween (a pagan holiday) or second marriages, or anything with anti-Christian, anti-American or vulgar messages.
          In a pluralistic society like America, this should not be an issue. The plaintiffs admit there were plenty of other bakers who would provide the cake, but this was never about getting a cake. No, it’s about forcing endorsement of the homosexual agenda and punishing a Christian for living by his faith.
          Phillips is so committed to living by his faith that, rather than violating it, he stopped offering customized wedding cakes altogether while the litigation process continues, costing him a staggering 40% of his revenue.
          The Supreme Court has issued prior rulings coming down on both sides of religious liberty. In West Virginia State BoE v. Barnette (1943), the Court upheld a Jehovah’s Witness’s right not to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance. In Wooley v. Maynard (1977), the Court said New Hampshire could not compel a Jehovah’s Witness to display the state motto “Live Free or Die” on his license plate, as it would violate a citizen’s right “to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster … an idea they find morally objectionable.”
          On the other hand, in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), a Native American failed to win a religious exemption allowing him to smoke peyote, and of course, in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court swept aside the duly enacted legislation of the people of three dozen states in codifying marriage as between a man and a woman, compelling acceptance of a redefinition of marriage that two-thirds of states found objectionable.
          There is also an undercurrent that reveals an unequal application of the law by government which is hostile to Christians.
          For example, the same Colorado Commission on Human Rights that compelled Phillips to bake the cake allowed three bakers to refuse service to customers seeking to buy cakes with messages criticizing same-sex “marriage,” an obvious refutation of the claim that this is about enforcing viewpoint neutrality. The state is punishing speech it finds objectionable.
          In fact, a study by the First Liberty Institute, which tracks violations of religious liberty, found a 15% increase in legal cases that affect religious liberty in America. From unequal access to federal funds for churches, to lawsuits demanding removal of Christian symbols and memorials from public spaces, to denying freedom of religion to military service members, to compelling Christian bakers, florists, photographers and other artists to participate in same-sex weddings, a clear trend is evident in the oppression of the religious liberties of Christians.
          This is mostly due to the larger debate about rights. For the Right, rights are about individual liberty, and these rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. For the Left, “rights” are made up out of whole cloth to serve the desired outcome of some constituency, and, in order for these rights to be exercised, it usually means someone else must be compelled to provide something for the recipient.
          The outcome of this case will be far-reaching. In fact, some wonder whether, for example, Christian medical professionals soon will be forced to participate in abortions or assisted suicide, or Catholic Adoption Services forced to place children in homes with same-sex parents. The possibilities are as endless as they are frightening.
          The reality is that the plaintiffs suing Christian business owners are not interested in equality, or accommodation, but in government-compelled acceptance of something tens of millions of Americans find religiously and morally objectionable.
          Craig and Mullins, the plaintiffs in the Masterpiece case, are just the latest iteration of Eric McKinley, the homosexual man who used the New Jersey Civil Rights Division to bludgeon eHarmony, a Christian dating site, into offering services to homosexuals.
          After several years of litigation, and facing the daunting power of the state to cripple its business, eHarmony submitted to the state and began offering dating services to homosexuals. No sooner had McKinley vanquished his Christian foe than he announced that he had no intention of using the site. This was about punishment, not equality.
          Marriage is found nowhere in the Constitution, much less a “right” to same-sex marriage. However, the freedoms of religion, speech and association are found in the Constitution, right there in the First Amendment.
          If the black-robed oligarchs of the Court (here’s looking at you, Anthony Kennedy) have any respect for the language and intent of the Constitution, Jack Phillips’ freedoms will be protected. There are reasons to be hopeful, but time will tell.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52757