Eat Mor Chick-Fil-A

I went out of my way to eat at my local Chick-Fil-A for lunch this past week, and that chicken sandwich tasted great. The place was busy, but the service was excellent and in no time I was enjoying my food. If you haven’t been to a Chick-Fil-A lately, I would encourage you to do so.

There are some people in this country who would disagree with me. These people are a part of the pro-same-sex marriage movement and are upset by the fact that Dan Cathy, President of Chick-Fil-A, openly voiced his support for traditional marriage. According to these folks, we should boycott the restaurant chain because of Dan Cathy’s “incendiary views”.

This controversy erupted because, when the Baptist Press asked about his company’s support for traditional families, Cathy responded “Guilty as charged”.

"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 give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that."

Wow, how shocking and incendiary! Who would have expected that from a man who professes to be a Christian, and runs a restaurant company that refuses to open on Sunday? Because of these remarks, and the fact that Chick-Fil-A donates to Christian organizations that oppose same-sex marriage, we are all supposed to never eat there again.

Okay, if his remarks and their support for traditional marriage really bother you that much, don’t eat there. It is well within your rights to choose with whom you will do business. It is not right however, for the mayors of Boston and Chicago to attempt to block the company from building restaurants in their cities. What may be entirely appropriate positions for individuals and private organizations to take are absolutely inappropriate for government agencies. The religious beliefs of the company’s owners are not punishable offenses.

If I were in Dan Cathy’s position, it would be tempting to turn my back on these two cities and shake the dust from my shoes. After all, the company has been doing quite well over the years without building restaurants there; and I suspect they could continue to do so in the future. The problem is however, that by not challenging this action we allow the precedent to stand that the government can punish a company because of the religious beliefs of the company’s owners. Is this the kind of American in which you want to live?

Dan Cathy had the audacity to openly state the fact that he believes in the Biblical standard for marriage, a view held by the majority of Americans; and for that he is being castigated as a bigot and his business is being discriminated against by the government. Regardless of how Chick-Fil-A decides to respond to this action, we as Christians should be outraged. If Boston Mayor Tom Menino and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel are allowed to get away with such blatant attacks on Cathy’s religious freedom, we are all at risk of having to toe the line of political correctness to avoid punishment from the government. Christians should not be alone in their outrage, however; all Americans face the same fate. When the government is allowed to punish someone for their religious views, the right to exercise our freedom of religion is under attack for people of all faiths.

Mr. President, I Have A Question

Mr. President, at a recent fundraiser in Oakland California you made the following statement to your supporters: “…we tried our plan, and it worked.” While I don’t necessarily dispute your statement, I do have one question.

Unemployment has been over 8% for 41 consecutive months.

The Labor Force Participation Rate is the lowest in 30 years.

Last year 53% of college graduates under 25 years old were either unemployed or underemployed.

Real median household income has declined since by $4300 since you’ve been in the White House.

During that same period the amount of money the federal government pays directly to Americans has increased by 32%.

The U.S. poverty rate is nearing a 50 year high.

48% of all Americans are considered to be either low income or are living in poverty.

The poverty rate for children living in the United States is 22%

The number of Americans on Food Stamps has risen 43% in 3 years.

New home sales in June fell 8.4%, the largest drop in over a year.

Housing prices in the United States are down 35%.

The U.S. Federal Debt is nearing $16 Trillion, up $5 Trillion since you took office.

Mr. President, I believe you when you say your plan is working. My question for you Mr. President, is if your plan is working, what exactly are you trying to accomplish?

A Few Thoughts on Gun Control

The recent shootings in Colorado have had the predictable effect on the leftists in this country. Like Pavlov’s dogs, they begin to salivate over the prospect of new gun control laws. It is truly sad that they would use such a senseless tragedy to further their political agendas, but it is not surprising. As they have chosen to voice their desire to punish all of America for the actions of one deranged young man, I will take the time to point out a few things that are relevant to this subject.

For easy reference, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution says:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

With this in mind, consider the following points:
~ The gun grabbers for some reason feel the need to point out that guns are made for the sole purpose of killing people. This is one of the few times when the phrase “Well, duh!” is entirely appropriate. Of course they are intended to kill people, and when you need to kill people few things work as well, and high capacity magazines are pretty useful things to have when you need to kill a lot of people.

~ Most liberals want Congress to just ignore the Constitution and pass legislation they are not authorized to pass. Others on the other hand, are more than willing to state outright that they want to repeal the Second Amendment. What they fail to understand is that the Second Amendment does not grant us the right to keep and bear arms; it charges the federal government with the responsibility of protecting a right we already had. Congress does not now, nor will it ever have, the authority to deny us the right to bear arms.

~ Those who would take away your right to bear arms love to point to the number of people who are killed with guns, using this as justification to take away our freedom. Using this same logic, religion should be banned as well since many people are killed as a result of someone’s religious beliefs. Also, we should not be allowed to engage in politics since so many people are killed because of someone’s political beliefs. You can see where this is going, right?

~ Killing people without justification is illegal. If someone is willing to murder dozens of innocent people, do you think they are going to be dissuaded by gun control legislation? Of course, you could ban guns altogether, but how well is that sort of thing working for marijuana? If I’m not mistaken, it is a felony to sell cocaine, and illegal to use firearms in the commission of a felony, yet cocaine dealers pretty much all have guns. How will society suddenly become safer when the rest of us don’t?

~ Many people have pointed out that more people could have escaped the theater if the James Holmes had stopped every few shots to reload. I would just like to point out that there would have been no need to escape the theater if a few dozen of the other theater patrons had been armed.

~ The Constitution does not guarantee our right to keep and bear arms because the founding fathers wanted us to be able hunt and target shoot. The Second Amendment was passed because they wanted us to be able to overthrow the government if it ceased to operate within the limits placed on it by the Constitution. If for no other reason, this is why we need “assault weapons”. The more people talk about banning guns, the more I think this will become necessary.

~ There are two men running for President, one of which will win the election in November. One of them represents a political party that has been quite vocal about their desire to ban guns, and the other has been steadfastly opposed to such measures. Bear that in mind as you go to the polls on November 6th.