Never ask how low the democrats can go to push their own agenda because they work very hard at trying to see how low they can go.
Now, isn’t it true that democrats donate funding to their various agendas and if they have a group or business that would welcome money in turn for supporting their democratic brethren, I have yet to hear anyone threaten or chastise them. Remember how they supported the restaurant that kicked out Sarah Sanders?
Well, In-N-Out dared to donate a check to the Republican faction and you’d think they had presented the check in person with a mob carrying disrespectful banners about the conservatives. You know, like the democrats usually handle things? Nope, In-N-Out gave the Republicans a donation and the democrats didn’t like it so they, as usual, verbally attacked and started another turmoil in town.
Well, I have taken note of this concern. We have an In-N-Out within walking distance from home. I’m thinking of going over there these weekend and give them . . . money in exchange for one of their great hamburgers and fries. Maybe I will give them a twenty and force them to have to make change. That will show them, right!
I came across this information this morning and cannot believe that a person’s freedom of choice can be against the law if the choice doesn’t come under what the State wants rather than the individual.
People should have choices and even if one doesn’t always approve of another person’s choices, it should be their choice, right? Not according to a new bill being considered seriously in the State of California. The bill will make it unlawful for a person who is gay to decide to seek counseling because they might want to change their sexual identity. The law would also take away the right to separation of church and state as even a priest, rabbi, or minister would not be allowed to do counseling to that effect.
I’ve been coming across this information for the last week or so and am wondering if NOW, our priests and bishops will stand up and speak against this bill as it does affect the way they can deal with parishioners in conflict legally.
In California, we tend to avoid musing over ‘what next’ as the future ‘what next’ is always worse than the last one. Don’t we have enough serious problems in California to keep our government busy that they seem to feel they have to meddle in everyone’s personal life? It’s truly not constitutional but that hasn’t really stopped many politicians up to now.
And the rest of the country shouldn’t get too complacent because the liberal factions are constantly trying to make the changes they want not the the changes that truly benefit the citizens.