Priest Spit On At Gay Parade. His Loving Reaction Surprised Many…





Remember all the talk about how “love wins” and how we have to be tolerant of all the different things? Apparently, that doesn’t count if you’re a Priest walking down the street.


To be fair, we have no proof of this incident. I know Father Jonathan, and he’s an incredibly friendly gentleman. Almost to the point of being annoyingly nice. So this is mere conjecture, but I’ve never known him to sound a false alarm.

Also, to be fair, Fr. Jonathan Morris is on Fox News and expresses opinions with which leftists disagree. If anything, it’s his fault for being out in public where leftists can see him and get triggered by his mere existence. What choice did they have? This is how they do.

Father Jonathan had a choice, and he chose love. Irony much?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

CNN Claims ‘ISIS Flag’ At Gay Parade. Turns Out To Be Something Quite Different…

Everyone is excited about the gay marriage ruling. Just ask politicians like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton whose opinion on gay marriage over the past ten years was to lick their finger and see which way the wind was blowing. Kind of like… everything else they do. It’s their shtick.

But ISIS? The Islamic religious organization that is so intolerant to the gay lifestyle that they think they shouldn’t get married…or be allowed to breathe?

Well, according to CNN, they were at a gay pride parade! Yay! Tolerance!

There’s just one problem…


Two things here:

1. Quality trolling by whoever designed the flag. Game respects game.

2. In CNN’s true leftist fashion, they tried to show how everyone, including Muslims, were happy about this gay marriage ruling… but in the process, they managed to embarrass themselves while also reminding people which religion is truly intolerant of the gays. HINT: it’s the one that still hangs them publicly.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Gay NYTimes OpEd Complains… That ‘Gay Marriage’ Is Legal?!

Liberals are miserable people and will always find something to complain about, and this New York Times OpEd “–Historic Day for Gays, but Twinge of Loss for an Outsider Culture“–is a perfect example. After a lifelong fight about acceptance and being treated like everyone else, now people are lamenting that they are losing what made them different? No, really…

The Supreme Court on Friday expanded same-sex marriage rights across the country, a crowning achievement but also a confounding challenge to a group that has often prided itself on being different. The more victories that accumulate for gay rights, the faster some gay institutions, rituals and markers are fading out. And so just as the gay marriage movement peaks, so does a debate about whether gay identity is dimming, overtaken by its own success.

“What do gay men have in common when they don’t have oppression?” asked Andrew Sullivan, one of the intellectual architects of the marriage movement. “I don’t know the answer to that yet.”

“The thing I miss is the specialness of being gay,” said Lisa Kron, who wrote the book and lyrics for “Fun Home,” a Broadway musical with a showstopping number sung by a young girl captivated by her first glimpse of a butch woman. “Because the traditional paths were closed, there was a consciousness to our lives, a necessary invention to the way we were going to celebrate and mark family and mark connection. That felt magical and beautiful.”

Liberals are beyond self-parody. If they aren’t oppressed and calling you a bigot for oppressing them, they have nothing to talk about.

So… how about that new… non-oppression, oppression huh? Yep…

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Government Hegemony Expands To Meaning Of Words!

This past week, the Supreme Court struck another major blow to common sense and the English language. In a ruling upholding the subsidies afforded to policies purchased on the federal insurance exchange, the SCOTUS opened a veritable Pandora’s Box of legal interpretation, and expanded power not only of the judiciary, but of the federal government itself.

Seven times throughout the Affordable Care Act (ACA), references are made to policies or individuals who are “enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act…” In each case, the context is citing policies purchased through insurance exchanges established and operated by the respective states. But the court ruled the actual legal language, and even the context, didn’t matter. What mattered was the “intent” of the Congress. So reading “tea leaves” now has greater weight with our legal system than the literal words of legal documents!

To be clear, the case was brought to the court on that very issue, whether the literal meaning of the words of the statute were legally binding. The decision was not regarding the efficacy of the ACA, or whether it’s feasible. The decision was on whether the law could be interpreted to support federal subsidies for states with no insurance exchange or only those states that had established their own exchange.

Even Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority decision, conceded that a strict reading of the Act clearly meant only policies purchased through individual state exchanges were eligible for federal subsidies. He wrote: “While the meaning of the phrase…may seem plain when viewed in isolation, such a reading turns out to be untenable in light of the statute as a whole. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.”

The Court has historically ruled on constitutionality of statute. With this decision, however, the Court has clearly become a proactive partner with Nancy Pelosi’s 111th Congress in writing the wholly inappropriately-named Affordable Care Act. Seven times, the Act described, in context, that subsidies would be available through Section 1311-sanctioned State Exchanges. Yet the Court by a 6-3 majority became a partner in writing the law, ex post facto, by redefining a key component of it.

Obviously, legislative intent is now more consequential than legal wording. This means that even legal documents generated by the government, which establish the rule of law by the selection and utilization of specific words and phrases, will not necessarily be judged based on what they actually say, but what the intent was. And since intent can be interpreted far beyond the scope of actual legalese, taking the government to court on any matter of law will now be a potentially arbitrary and spurious crapshoot.

To illustrate the absurdity of such a notion, imagine if the same principle applied to our legal documents regarding wills, property ownership, and child custody issues. If the Supreme Court’s logic, or illogic, were to be applied to our legal documents, what they say literally becomes inconsequential; for the intent is what is meaningful, not the words. We can claim that we didn’t intend to break the law when charged, but that doesn’t matter. But if we broke the law, what our intent was becomes inconsequential. Yet now, the government claims the plenipotentiary authority to claim that intent matters more than the actual law, and the language that created it. A government should never be able to do what an individual citizen can’t.

It’s common to take such a cavalier attitude towards what people or organizations say or write. They can say something, and then apologize for it, claiming that wasn’t their intent. But for government, this is a new low. It now has legal precedence to make the same claim with regard to statute and laws, if their intent was different than the actual wording of a law!

Justice Antonin Scalia illustrated the absurdity of the ruling in his dissent. “I wholeheartedly agree with the Court that sound interpretation requires paying attention to the whole law, not homing in on isolated words or even isolated sections. Context always matters. Let us not forget, however, why context matters: It is a tool for understanding the terms of the law, not an excuse for rewriting them…

“Far from offering the overwhelming evidence of meaning needed to justify the Court’s interpretation, other contextual clues undermine it at every turn. To begin with, other parts of the Act sharply distinguish between the establishment of an Exchange by a State and the establishment of an Exchange by the Federal Government….Provisions such as these destroy any pretense that a federal Exchange is in some sense also established by a State…

“The Court has not come close to presenting the compelling contextual case necessary to justify departing from the ordinary meaning of the terms of the law. Quite the contrary, context only underscores the outlandishness of the Court’s interpretation. Reading the Act as a whole leaves no doubt about the matter: ‘Exchange established by the State’ means what it looks like it means.”

This ruling is not dissimilar from the 2012 ruling upholding the mandate of Obamacare. That ruling sustained the Act by identifying the “mandate” as a “tax.” It would appear with two major SCOTUS decisions upholding the Act that the only way it can be deemed constitutional is by the Court’s new precedence of reinterpreting and changing what the words actually say, legally. In other words, jumping through logical and linguistic hoops to make it so. As Senator Rand Paul said, “This decision turns both the rule of law and common sense on its head.”

The omnipotent authority of the government over individual lives is now complete, when words can mean whatever the government chooses to make them mean. Alexander Hamilton, upon the founding of the nation, declared: “It’s not tyranny we desire; it’s a just, limited, federal government.” When government can arbitrarily change, reinterpret, and alter statute, after the fact, it is no longer just, or limited. It is totalitarian and hegemonic!

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Boom: Trump Just Responded To NBC Cutting Ties With This Epic Takedown

Years ago, NBC and Donald Trump formed a partnership that produced the Miss USA and Miss Universe Pageants as well as the successful series The Apprentice and its spinoff, Celebrity Apprentice. Since announcing his presidential candidacy, however, the professional relationship has strained to the point of dissolution.

Trump faced backlash over recent campaign statements critical of America’s broken immigration system. The criticism led to Spanish-language cable network Univision opting not to air content from the Miss Universe Organization. News broke Monday that NBC decided to follow suit and cut all ties with the real estate mogul.

The network explained the decision in a statement:

At NBC, respect and dignity for all people are cornerstones of our values. Due to the recent derogatory statements by Donald Trump regarding immigrants, NBCUniversal is ending its business relationship with Mr. Trump.

The reliably outspoken Trump, however, quickly responded with a statement of his own. In it, he stood by his previous comments while denigrating the corporate character of his former network partner.

“As of today,” the statement began, “Donald J. Trump is no longer affiliated with NBC. Mr. Trump stands by his statements on illegal immigration, which are accurate. NBC is weak, and like everybody else is trying to be politically correct – that is why our country is in serious trouble.”


Immediate response among Trump’s Facebook followers expressed overwhelming disapproval of NBC’s action.

“Sick of this politically correct crap,” one reader wrote.

Another chimed in: “NBC is so irrelevant, keep it up Donald!”

Was NBC right to fire Donald Trump? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth