By: Brent Parrish


An apoplectic fit has erupted in the media over Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Never mind the fact the Indiana statute is  similar to a federal statute signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. The Indiana law also mirrors similar laws on the books in thirty-plus other states.

Oh, and let’s just ignore the fact the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder backed the most controversial part of the RFRA law in court, contradicting the allegations by some far-left rags who claim the Indiana law is fundamentally different from other RFRA laws.

Via National Review (emphasis mine):

The Obama Administration held that a corporation, albeit a non-profit one, could defend itself against a private claim from an employee by asserting that the Obamacare’s contraception mandate imposes a “substantial burden” on its free exercise of religion. That is to say, the most controversial aspect of the new Indiana religious-freedom law was blessed by Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department. This position is directly at odds with the views of Sotomayor, Posner, and others. Again, none of this was particularly controversial until fairly recently.

Additionally, President Obama signed a comparable bill in 1998 when he was an Illinois senator. But that didn’t stop the White House from hitting back at Indiana’s RFRA law.


The usual suspects have taken their unhinged indignation to social media to lambast and paint the entire state of Indiana (my home state) as a bunch of intolerant “bigots.”



One activist group who obviously opposes Indiana’s RFRA law went so far as to make a video titled “Indiana Is a Great Place To Be a Bigot,” along with the accompanying byline: “If you love covered bridges and discriminating, book your trip to Indiana today.”

The hypocrisy is in overdrive now. Connecticut’s Democratic governor, Dan Malloy, attacked Gov. Mike Pence as a “bigot,” despite Connecticut having a religious freedom law on its books.

Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, tweeted his “disappointment” over Indiana’s law, urging the governor of Arkansas to veto similar legislation. Never mind the fact Apple does business with a number of countries in the Middle East who regularly persecute and murder homosexuals.


And then there’s Elizabeth Ashack, an economist with the Bureau of Labor Statistics who tweeted: “[P]eople in the red states vote for nazis to govern, and then call themselves Christian, it will not end well for them. #BoycottIndiana”


Ashack quickly deleted her incendiary tweet, but not before some managed to capture screenshots of her original tweet. She then edited her Twitter profile and removed any mention of her employment at the BLS. But her editing was also observed and reported. So now Elizabeth Ashack is claiming her Twitter account was hacked.

Let’s just review how the dialectic works in relation to social issues that are exploited solely for political purposes, i.e., more government control.

Years ago I read an article by a former detective, Philip Worts, that succinctly lays out the dialectic tactic and how it is used to bring about a “paradigm shift”:

In group dynamics the pain is not physical, it’s emotional. Do not underestimate the force of emotional pain. POWs frequently described their long periods in isolation as worse than some of the most brutal physical torture. Isolation from the group is a powerful behavior modification weapon.

Transformational Marxists such as Kurt Lewin refined their weapon for the new battlefield: Using group dynamics to invade the culture to affect the paradigm shift. The weapon looks like this:

  1. A Diverse Group (“Diversity” needed for conflict)
  2. Dialoging to Consensus (Dialectic process)
  3. Over a Social Issue (Problem/Crisis/Issues)
  4. In a Facilitated Meeting (Controlled environment using facilitator/change agent)
  5. To a Predetermined Outcome (Paradigm shift)

The dialectical exercise is often given lovable labels like “consensus-building” or “conflict resolution.” On the surface, it may sound good. But the whole point of the strategy is to bring about consensus (see “bipartisanship” and “compromise”) by rubbing opposite sides of the political spectrum against each other in an effort to move both sides toward a predetermined outcome.

I suspect this is all being ginned up to fire up the left’s base following the shellacking they received in the 2014 primaries, and to try and flip Indiana into the blue column.


Click above to read the article.

We so often hear, particularly from the left, that we must practice “tolerance” and accept all points of views. And we also hear, ad nauseum, about the need for “equality” and “fairness” from the same people. But why is tolerance and fairness and equality strictly a one-way street?

Let’s just look at a few recent examples of so-called “tolerance” and “fairness.”

There have been several reports as of late of whites being banned from “Black Lives Matter” events (see here and here). And there’s the recent protests by “Black Brunch” protesters crowd targeting “white establishments” for “disruption” solely based on the color of one’s skin. Just invert white for black in these reports and imagine the whirlwind of outrage that would pour forth from the left and the main-stream media. And yet we hear nary a word from the liberal media about such discriminatory practices that are based solely on one’s faith or skin color.

So, once again, why is tolerance and equality and fairness only a one-way street? I think we know why. And it has nothing to do with tolerance and equality and fairness, but rather power for power’s sake alone … tolerance be damned.

how convenient church lady


Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act


Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) “Establishment Clause” refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) “Granting”, used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, “demonstrates”means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, “exercise of religion” includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, “governmental entity” includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, “person” includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person’s invocation of this chapter.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person’s exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney’s fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.

Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.

About Brent Parrish

Author, blogger, editor, researcher, graphic artist, software engineer, carpenter, woodworker, guitar shredder and a strict constitutionalist. Member of the Watcher's Council and the Qatar Awareness Campaign. I believe in individual rights, limited government, fiscal responsibility and a strong defense. ONE WORD: FREEDOM!
This entry was posted in Active Measures, American Culture, Bible, Bill of Rights, Calumny, Christianity, Communications, Communism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, Democrats, DNC, Economy, elitism, Fascism, First Amendment, GOP, Homosexuality, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Legal/Judicial, LGBT Activism, Liberal Crap, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Neoconservatism, Operant Conditioning, opinion, Politics, Prejudice, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Racism, Rank Stupidity, Religion, Senate, Social Engineering, Socialism, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.