No Breakfast For You: Red Hen Kicks Out Sarah Sanders And Her Family [UPDATED]

SarahHuckabeeSandersRecently we discussed the disturbing protest carried out at the MXDC restaurant against Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.   Members of Congress like Rep. Jackie Speier (D., Cal.) defended the protesters in disrupting the restaurant and forcing Nielsen to leave.  It was a sad statement on the utter loss of any sense of civility in our current political discourse.  Now, the owner of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia is at the center of this debate after throwing out White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and her family from breakfast.  Many liberals celebrated the rude denial of service by the owners while conservatives have directed their anger at the restaurant.  Much of the criticism has been misdirected against the Red Hen in D.C. which has gone to pains to point out that they are not associated with the Lexington Red Hen.  Many critics on Yelp and other sites have unleashed on the restaurant.  The co-owner responsible for the decision was Stephanie Wilkinson. Wilkinson founded the restaurant with John Blackburn, who reportedly named the restaurant after his favorite childhood story.  Wilkinson is reportedly the founder and publisher of Brain, Child magazine. She lists herself as a co-owner of the restaurant.  UPDATE: Wilkinson says that she is proud of her actions and would do it again.

Friday night, Jaike Foley-Schultz, a waiter at The Red Hen, posted on Facebook that “I just served Sarah huckabee sanders for a total of 2 minutes before my owner kicked her out along with 7 of her other family members…”

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Sanders confirmed that “Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so.”

Sarah Sanders@PressSec

Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so

 The defense of such disgraceful conduct by liberals is itself shocking.  Presumably Rep. Speier and others would be put out if they were denied service due to their political beliefs. Indeed, this double standard is the subject of an earlier column.
Wilkinson lists herself as a graduate of Dartmouth with a B.A. in English Literature and a Ph.D., European & American Religious History from the University of Virginia. She also lists herself as Executive Director of “Main Street Lexington.”

The website for Main Street Lexington states:

“Main Street Lexington exists to enhance the economic prosperity and cultural vitality of our community, re-establishing downtown Lexington as the vibrant economic and cultural nexus of our area while maintaining its unique character.”

It is a curious approach for either economic development or managing a restaurant to tell conservatives that they are not welcomed.  Lexington is an area with many conservatives as well as liberals.  With marginal profits at many business, particularly restaurants, this inhospitable message for conservatives cannot be a good business plan.

Wilkinson is shown at executive director on the site.

I have been highly critical of Trump and his Administration.  However, I find this action to be incredibly offensive and wrongheaded.  I would feel that same if Rep. Speier were chased from a restaurant by a conservative owner.  Once again, we seem to have lost any sense of restraint and civility in our politics.  Extremists on both sides claim license to say and do most anything vis-a-vis their opponents.  There is a sense of utter release in these actions — the right to act in the most monstrous or menacing ways because you believe that you are right and they are wrong.  You can denounce Trump for petty and childish attacks and then engage in the very same conduct in response.  And so it continues on and on and on.  It is the impunity of action that comes with being right.

I would not go to the Red Hen any more than I would go to a restaurant that refused to serve Rep. Speier.  It is simple matter of courtesy and civility.

Update: The original column correctly noted that “[p]revious stories identified the co-owners as John Blackburn and Stephanie Wilkinson” while noting that it was unclear who were the other co-owners of the restaurant at this time.  It has since come out that Blackburn gave up his ownership a three or four years ago.  The original story said that it appeared likely that it was Wilkinson who is referenced by Sanders and, when Wilkinson confirmed her role, the column was updated.  While one of the two founders with Wilkinson (and the person who named the restaurant), Blackburn however gave up his interest in the Red Hen in 2014 and has complained that he is receiving considerable backlash from the story. That was obviously not our intention when we shared the information on the prior ownership information. He now appears to be in the unenviable position as the many other Red Hen restaurants receiving blowback after Wilkinson’s actions.  As noted in the column, what was missing in the Wilkinson’s actions was civility and understanding. The same failure of judgment can be found in those who are attacking third parties like Blackburn.  While the story would have still referenced Blackburn as a founder with Wilkinson, there was no intention to add to Blackburn’s burden in reporting what information we could find on the restaurant’s ownership history.

720 thoughts on “No Breakfast For You: Red Hen Kicks Out Sarah Sanders And Her Family [UPDATED]”

  1. Dan Bongino hit the nail on the head in his description of the current state of political discourse in this country. Those on the political right believe their counterparts on the left are people with bad ideas, while those on the political left have persuaded themselves that people on the right are EVIL and have bad ideas.

    1. Blaine,…
      – Good points that you wrapped up in a concise package.
      I would add that it’s about tactics and behavior, as well as issues.
      And as these showboating stunts become more common, the tactics themselves will become a bigger issue.

    2. Allow me to clarify the American condition for you.

      – Communists want “free stuff” or “individual welfare.”

      Problem: The Constitution does not allow “free stuff” and limits the power of Congress to tax merely for “general Welfare” as the Founders deliberately omitted and, thereby, excluded, individual welfare.

      Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

      “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes…to…provide for…the general Welfare of the United States;

      – Communists want social engineering or “Affirmative Action Privilege,” quotas, forced busing, unfair “Fair Housing,” discriminatory “Non-Discrimination,” social services, etc.

      Problem: The Constitution does not allow for communistic “social engineering” as the Constitution provides for the right to possess and dispose of private property understanding that James Madison defined “private property” as “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

      Because the Constitution does not allow the existence of communists or their communistic, redistributionist and socialist philosophy, socialist, progressive, liberal democrats attempt to “vote” communism into dominion in America by any means, including those artificial, such as the importation of unassimilable antithetical, nonfamilial, incongruous and even illegal “democrat voters” in order to dilute the votes of Americans and, yes, Americans themselves out of existence and into extinction.

      It is explained by the allegory of boiling the frog slowly so that he remains unaware of his own imminent demise.

      1. Yes, your precious bodily fluids are existentially and imminently threatened by foreign babies with ill intent!

  2. Scott Adams, today in Vid post, and he is not republican, doesn’t vote, is saying that now “they are coming for you”, Trump supporters. Prof. Turley wants to be an ostrich with his head in the ground but the existential threat is real.

    For decades the propaganda of Nazism was used to discredit nationalism but also to work it up into a big evil. Deutsch has come out on MSNBC to label all Trump supporters as Nazis. Scott Adams is saying that the Left in their use of terror against Trump supporters are going to suppress the vote. This vid is MUST LISTEN:

    I was not wrong in my comments on this thread. The state of Venezuela is the Future of America. It is already evident in California.

  3. Lets ask the Dixie Chicks, and maybe anybody brown or black or gay, how bad it feels to be looked at with hate. Ms Sanders is a paid professional liar, and should get shame in her very profession that she willfully does everyday. Standing at the front of the world and lie everyday on behalf of the President, and getting caught everyday must be some kind of new relativity of fact and truth.

    1. Lets ask the Dixie Chicks, and maybe anybody brown or black or gay, how bad it feels to be looked at with hate.

      Can we ask that question of the people slandered over the years by Al Sharpton or by the Dixie Chicks’ confederates in the world of leftoid glitterati?

      1. NII, it’s nite- nite time for you, or maybe a time-out. You have been working hard on behalf of the truly stupid. all day, so it’s expected that you are tired.

  4. And I would imagine that it’s more for her lies and backing up her liar then her being a conservative get a grip people

      1. There is little or nothing in the way of a popular NeverTrump constituency. It’s a claque of opinion journalists and krill suspended in the foetid waters of Capitol Hill. Jennifer Rubin and Bret Stephens work for the Bezos Birdcage Liner and the Sulzberger Birdcage Liner respectively. And it shows.

        1. The Reagans and the Bushes are all NeverTrump conservatives. So is Mitt Romney.

          George W Bush has never endorsed Trump.

          1. The only ‘Reagans’ are his three surviving children and his three grandchildren. The grandchildren are not public figures and two of his three children were at odds with their father from 1970 to the end of his public life. As for Michael Reagan, his remarks are here:


            In re the Bushes, they manage to lose gracefully and often in regard to policy matters. They could extend that disposition to electoral contests.

    1. Yes, but your imagination isn’t worth anything. Press agents aren’t generally given to unadorned candor. Somehow I don’t ‘imagine’ any of the crew who worked for BC or BO bothered you at all (and they seemed as well to frequent restaurants which weren’t owned by attitudinizing jerks).

      1. He can use big words and still be a jerk, take a time out, you don’t have be be a know-it-all all the time.

  5. “Haha. Fake news. Prove it, pee breath.”

    Mark, Anyone listening to you knows what you are capable of.

  6. According to a TNYT article mostly about Ivanka a Trump insider said that Donald Trump was the meanist man he had ever met.

    1. According to something I read in a piece of the same caliber of the NYTimes, someone close to your wife said you beat her every day.

      David, is that true? Are you even married? I hate these anonymous reports published by newspapers as news when actually they are hit pieces that stray far from the truth. Don’t you?

      1. Isn’t it ridiculous? Let’s break it down:

        – So what if Donald Trump is “mean”. What does that even mean?

        – Some random anonymous (so many anonymous sources) claims Trump is the “meanest” man he’s ever met. So who was second place in that list? I mean, it could be the anonymous source has never met a mean person before.

        – Isn’t “mean” a subjective perception and an unquantifiable one at that? Depending on one’s prior background and life experience, isn’t it possible that a motivated and demanding boss like Trump might appear as “mean” if all one has known is the faculty lounge?

        – Eisenhower as I recall wasn’t the most personable person to be POTUS. Was he mean?

        I hate that I wasted space actually typing this up…sad to realize that in these monumental times the most monumental thing our media can do is write up stories they wish were true, and then falsely claim an anonymous person as their source. I’ll bet you an adult beverage 99.9% of all these anonymous sources are little more that the imaginary friends of NYT typists. (Never call them writers).

        1. Andrew, you recall Eisenhower, do you?

          Your comment receives an F grade for lack of veracity.

        2. There is truth in the fact that among other qualities of a business leader or owner is that sometimes you have to be mean when the situation requires it.

          I bought a large order of goods through a distributor after arranging from the maker of the goods to receive a favorable price in exchange for promotion of their product. The distributor saw the lower wholesale price and pilfered half my order for distribution to other clients.

          I called the distributor’s sales rep and read him the riot act, then called the vice-president of the company to voice my complaint. I ordered no products from the distributor for several weeks, costing them many thousands of dollars in lost revenue.

          Afterward, I called the sales rep back to my office and informed him that if they pulled a stunt like that again, I would order the minimum amount of stock needed and would not promote products sold by them in the future. Yet I gave him a way to save face by saying that in the future if they offered me favorable prices, I would be happy to return to a good working relationship. And afterward, it worked out for both of us.

          So if Mr. Trump in his business dealings had to kick some ass once in a while, its just part of the nature of the business jungle.

            1. Yes, David, you know everything. Everyone else trembles in response to your full clairvoyance of what people know. Your ability to extract levels of knowledge possessed by each individual, including those you’ve never met in person, must be a marvel to the scientific community.

              Maybe you should further your collection of accolades by crowning yourself with an order of chivalry and affix such as suffixes to your name–such as perhaps The Most Truthful Order of the Jackalope, or The Academic Society of the Simple-minded. Then you can crown yourself with the self-styled “The Right Honorable David B. Benson, JACK ASS.”

              It is more than apparent you haven’t rightfully earned the level of arrogance you exude, but I’m sure somewhere there is a trailer park teeming with residents who will accept you as a kindred spirit: one of the few that made it past fifth grade and stayed out of prison.

              Yes David, you are truly a legend in your own mind.

        1. David, you missed the point. That is what the NYTimes does and I was pointing out how easy it is to make up a story based on a “Trump insider”. I did to you what the NYTimes did to Trump. I’ll repeat what I said so you can get the irony.

          According to something I read in a piece of the same caliber of the NYTimes, someone close to your wife said you beat her every day.

          David, is that true? Are you even married? I hate these anonymous reports published by newspapers as news when actually they are hit pieces that stray far from the truth. Don’t you?

            1. David is anonymous reporting only trustworthy when it has to do with something bad about Trump? I gave you an anonymous report about you and your misogyny. Why is one anonymous report acceptable and the other isn’t? I don’t believe either but since they are both anonymous if you believe one you should believe the other.

              Think of this logically. If you do then you will find that instead of that S standing for Stupid the S will stand for Smart.

                1. David, sometimes the unintelligent need repetition so that they can absorb what is being said. It appears you have a great deal of difficulty in handling questions of logic. To you, there is a grand difference in the veracity of an anonymous source. If that source makes you look bad you believe the anonymous source is bad, but if that anonymous source makes Trump look bad you believe the anonymous source is good.

                  A lack of logic is frequently seen in the unintelligent. Are you unintelligent?

              1. “David is anonymous reporting only trustworthy when it has to do with something bad about Trump?” — Allan

                Is this sentence meant to have meaning?

                Yes, I get the ‘David is anonymous’ relative to the posters here. But what of the rest of the sentence?

                Additionally, according to PCS, Olly, Allan, SOT/DSS/NII, and a few stragglers not worth mentioning, L4D is at least five people, Benson is now anon — which means Benson is at least seven people.

                These crazy f—- actually think they can comment on a blog with the traffic of this one and not have anyone — in PCS’ words — play in their sandbox?

                Arrogant pricks all; delusions of grandeur in their faulting of others.

                1. WDAS, I never said Benson is anonymous in fact I know exactly who he is. You just can’t read so get that arrogant … out of your mouth and start thinking with your brain.

                2. WDAS said, “according to PCS, Olly, Allan, SOT/DSS/NII . . . L4D is at least five people, Benson is now anon — which means Benson is at least seven people.”

                  I wish, I wish, I wish I were at least five people. And seven Drs. Bensons would be at least forty-nine times better than just one. But what this blawg really needs is an army of Original Kens and Lindas-Lindas, Tygers-Tygers.

    2. So you are using quadruple hearsay as the basis for what ?

      Bill and Hillary Clinton are pretty “mean” too.

      I would prefer a president who was not “mean”. I was not offered that choice.
      Nor the choice of one with good character.

  7. Prof Turley:

    This is discrimination, but it is LEGAL discrimination, so the restaurant owner is on solid ground.

    There is no provision in Virginia law or federal law saying a business cannot discriminate on the basis of political beliefs. If a restaurant wants to throw out a group of Communists or Nazis, it is free to do so. The owner didn’t cross a legal or ethical line.

    Sarah Sanders is the one who crossed the line. She used her official government Twitter account to condemn the restaurant owner. She can promote or condemn a business on her own time, but ethics rules do not allow a government employee to use their work Internet accounts to do so.

    Like Kelly-Anne Conway, Sanders is going to find out very quickly that it is inappropriate for a federal employee to promote or hurt businesses.

    1. Sarah Sanders is the one who crossed the line. She used her official government Twitter account to condemn the restaurant owner.

      There’s ‘civility bullsh*t’ and there’s also ‘ethics bullsh*t”, including that of the Obama minion who used to run the Office of Government Ethics. It’s incredible that you take that shyster seriously. While we’re at it, she offered a brief account of what occurred. She didn’t condemn anyone.

      1. Sanders used her government Twitter account to condemn a private business for personal reasons. The business is legally entitled to refuse service to people on the basis of political beliefs.

        She is trying to use her public office to get the public to pressure the restaurant.

        It also violates the endorsement ban in that she gave a negative endorsement of the business with her Twitter account to discourage patronage.

        Sanders is the one who is in legal jeopardy, not the restaurant.

        Kellyanne Conway got into legal hot water when she endorsed Ivanka Trump’s merchandise on national TV and now she is hardly ever on TV.

        You cannot use a public office to endorse or discourage patronage at a business either way.

        1. Good luck trying to make the case that Sarah Sanders “is the one in legal jeopardy”.😄😂

      1. I did. I won’t hold my breath for the administration to hold them accountable though.

        The courts will have to.

        1. The sooner, the better — in the interest of preserving both our democratic republic and humanity that these barbaric bullies in the White House disgrace and subvert every single day.

    2. Sarah Sanders was commenting on a news story regarding herself. I believe her official website as well as the WH press room would both be appropriate.

      If she was complaining that she just didn’t like the food, and urged everyone not to go there, on her official account, that might be inappropriate. But it was a news item that she responded to in her official capacity. The only way for her to avoid impacting the business because of its own actions would be to deny that the event ever occurred.

      1. Karen, the complaint is utter rubbish, and the ethics maven revealed himself to be a pettifogging fraud in making it. Rather like his votaries here.

  8. The Red Hen and Masterpiece Cake retain the immutable right to possess and dispose of any and all
    aspects of their private property. The severely limited government established by the Founders has no authority to interfere with the possession or disposition of private property or in any way modify the right and ability of the owners to possess or dispose of their private property; “eminent domain” notwithstanding.

    The American Founders provided citizens, not government, with the right to private property. James Madison defined “private property” as

    “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of

    every other individual.”

  9. the only answer to these Leftists who harass other Americans is internment camps. It worked for the liberal icons Franklin Delano Rosevelt and Earl Warren. Of course Executive Order 9066 said it all, signed by liberal President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942.

    Liberal dictator Obama was no better in throwing immigrants and unaccompanied children of color in 2014 in barbed wire fence pens in Nogales, Arizona. Thus there is ample legal, Executive and Federal precedents

    Start with red chicken shit Red Hen owners, and proceed from Virginia to Florida Attorney General Pamela Bondi leftist harassers and continue to California, capture, tar and feather Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein and all who distract from the US Constitution and our elected President Donald Trump. We might as well string up Hillary Clinton to rid us of her flatulence

    The liberals will be really unhappy in internment camps ala Earl Warren, FDR and Obama but we might be persuaded to let them have Starbuck type Lattes named “Sarah Sanders full bodied cafe”


    1. and Lo! The intelligent people of Lexington, VA have spoken. They want the owner of the Red Hen to step down
      The Red Hen is now the Dead Hen: 3 employees at work, zero customers

      “The Historic Downtown Lexington Virginia Facebook page has a poll up asking “Should Stephanie Wilkinson of Main Street Lexington be able to keep her position as Director?” and it appear to be unanimous that Wilkinson should step down. As of this writing, 95% call for the Red Hen owner to step down as Director of Main Street Lexington”

      cuckle cuckle

  10. “You never know who’s swimming naked until the tide goes out.”

    ― Warren Buffett

    Where’s the NAACP?

    Does this mean we can put Rosa Parks in the back of the bus again?

    Looks like the communists stepped in it.


    1. “the communists stepped in”

      Yes they have. They are enjoying their meals at the Red Hen. Check out the review of their new menu

      “My wife and I had the Red Tasting Menu at the Red Hen and it was great! We started with Gulag Gaspatchio, the Castro Crab appetizer, Stalin Steaks with sautéed Mao Mushrooms and Pol Pot Potatoes, with Bolshevik Blinis for desert. We chased the meal down with vast quantities of Stolichnaya Vodka. Better Red than dead comrades! Long live the revolution.”

      1. Communists: People who engage in control of the means of production, central planning, redistribution of wealth and social engineering; all things which are precluded by the Constitution in favor of freedom, self-reliance and private property. Regulation of commercial activities is unconstitutional. Measurement and direction of free enterprise and the use of taxation as a tool by government are unconstitutional. Congress has merely the power to tax for “general Welfare” and taxation for individual welfare (welfare, food stamps, Obamacare, WIC, HAMP, HARP, Social Security, Medicare, utility subsidies, mortgage assistance, etc.) is deliberately omitted and, thereby, unconstitutional and excluded, in the Constitution. The right to private property precludes social engineering as “Affirmative Action Privilege,” forced busing, quotas, unfair “Fair Housing” laws, discriminatory “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

  11. For want of a Meal the child is Fed, for want of Hate the child is not. The former occurs at the border stations, the latter, a thing of privation as to the former occurred at Red Hen.

  12. What would the proprietors do if Christopher Wray came in to the Red Hen?

    If Christopher Wray didn’t know about the crimes of the DOJ/FBI, he’s got no business running the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He’s either corrupt or unqualified.

    If Christopher Wray didn’t know about the Obama coup d’etat, including the criminal activity of Comey and McCabe including the submission of a fraudulent, fabricated document to the FISA court and the promise of Strzok that “…we’ll stop him,” he’s not competent or capable of being the FBI Director.

    What did Christopher Wray know and when did he know it?

  13. Is a business owner allowed to say “No”? Once you open a business, can you be forced to do something against your conscience?

    As a business owner myself, not in food service, I am curious about how to balance an employer’s rights with that of employees and customers. There needs to be some balance.

    I personally have no problem with a consenting adult gay couple getting married. Monogamous long term partnerships are the most beneficial emotionally, financially, and health wise. But, I think polygamy is a horrible idea. It’s detrimental to the women involved who are put into a rotation to enjoy a fraction of their husband. The only way I think it would work is if all they felt for him was mild friendship and no romantic attachment. Practiced on a large scale, you get the “lost boys” kicked out of the community so the young, handsome males don’t compete with the powerful, older males for young mates. That’s why stallions fight all the time to keep their harems together away from poaching young bachelor stallions, who are always ready at the outskirts. Without forcibly removing the young males and distributing wealth and authority to the well connected church elders, these older men with dozens of wives cannot compete. Let’s say I was a hypothetical baker, and someone came to me in their prairie dress (which wouldn’t happen because women weren’t allowed to leave Yearning for Zion), and said they would like me to bake a cake for a man who was getting his 26th wife, a 16 year old. She would be a “spiritual wife” so nothing on paper to break the law. The age of consent is 16. He’s 54, and all his other wives are cowed and downcast. I’ve got to make a really big cake to feed all those other browbeaten women, with something cheerful like “Congratulations on the Best Day of Your Life – You’ve Been Chosen!” I would have to say, “Nooooooooooooooo.” Nope. Not going to do it. Go find another baker. But what if my government could force me to make a beautiful creation to celebrate what I would consider an abusive relationship? The government could force me against my will to smile and celebrate abuse? That’s wrong. I wouldn’t want the government to have that kind of authority over me.

    For many religious Christians, Muslims, or Orthodox Jews, they do not agree with gay marriage, and may not want to participate. Making them participate would be considered a sin. Would forcing them to participate in a gay wedding interfere with their Constitutional right to freedom of religion? Is atheism the only religion a business owner can practice? What if it’s a little bakery run by elderly nuns? Can they be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding? (

    The argument can be made that if a business can say no based on religious reasons, what if the KKK started a new “religion” claiming that black people are bad and cannot be served? What about Muslim restaurants not serving Jews, or vice versa? This is one of those difficult questions that we cannot kick down the road, but have to hash out.

    Based in part on watching these arguments unfold on the blog, I feel that if you are open to the public and serve pre-made items, like clothes, cupcakes, restaurant food, or framed prints that is the same for everyone, then you serve anyone not disruptive or dangerous. But you cannot be made to create something especially for an event that is contrary to your religious views or conscience. I would have to sell a premed cake in the case to the sad polygamist fiasco, but I’d tell them to buy a tube of frosting and write the message themselves. I wouldn’t have to make some confection for them custom, nor would I be forced against my will to write a happy message for a tragedy. That is a conscientious objection. No one could force me to write a cake that said “9/11 didn’t happen it’s a Zionist plot”, for example. That is forcing me to engage in speech with which I disagree. No one could make me decorate a cake celebrating the death of cops, because murder is against my religion, and celebrating murder is abhorrent.

    I do think that business owners retain the right to say no. That may have business consequences for them. But there are absolutely limits that we need to determine, because I would not like to see a return to Jim Crow. By the way, the Left seems to be returning to its Jim Crow roots in its segregation of student clubs and elsewhere. Strange.

    1. The Left and the Right can’t have it both ways.

      The Left has been refusing service to conservatives for years. That has been the topic of many free speech posts on this blog. They won’t even allow conservative speakers to enter college campuses. They consider that standing up for what’s right and fighting the good fight.

      Well, that’s what religious bakers, photographers, and florists have been doing in refusing to participate in a gay wedding. Not only do they feel it is morally wrong, but they consider it a sin on their own soul, which takes it to a whole other level. The Left can’t have it both ways. If a baker can be forced to bake a custom wedding cake for a gay wedding, then a restaurant can be forced to serve the same breakfast they feed everyone else to a prominent Republican.

      And if the Right wants bakers to be able to refuse to bake a cake for gay weddings, then other businesses can say no, too.

      The problem is that the Left wants the right to say no reserved only to itself, and has gotten away with it for years. Courts have punished conservatives for years no for refusing service. We now finally have a SCOTUS case that upheld freedom of religion, but I’m not sure how that’s going to play out. We’ll have to see.

      I have heard Liberal commentators say, see, the restaurant threw her out because SCOTUS said it was OK. Actually, that case was about a Constitutional right of freedom of religion, if I understood it correctly. But they fail to note that this has been going on for years. The Left refuses service, and it’s celebrated in the media. The right refuses service and they get harassed out of business, fined, and successfully sued in court.

      So if the Left is right, then they need to stop criticizing conservative business owners for saying no, too. You cannot withheld a right to others that you have enjoy yourself for years.

      Whatever is decided, it has to be fair.

      1. The baker case is not analogous with this restaurant case. The baker case was wrongly decided by SCOTUS, since it involved discrimination against persons qua their involuntary sexual identity, not their moral, social or religious beliefs per se.

        1. No, the baker case involved someone declining to participate in a parody wedding. In a free society, everyone has freedom of association and freedom of contract. It’s just that it outrages liberals that not everyone gives cloying deference to liberal’s mascot groups. We used to be a free country and we used to be a nation of adults.

          1. Absolute folderol from an immoral religious fanatic incapable of grasping basic logic, including the differentiation of nature from nurture, prejudice from preference and legal obligations from rights, etc. Your most absurd and risible assertion is that freedom of association trumps civil rights against fundamental, inhumane discrimination.

                1. Yes, portentous, you have adequately described yourself. A pompous purveyor of words that lack cohesive thought.

              1. I find it interesting that Portent401 who makes such a big deal of his own intellect and knowledge, is incapable of putting together a single sentence that is not an amalgam of multiple obvious fallacies.

                1. Portent can be extended to portentous and that is what he is. Pompous and trying to impress but in the end, there is little if any substance in what he says. He seems to have absolutely no defense of his viewpoints. “words, words, words” speak both Hamlet and Portentous but words by themselves are meaningless.

            1. “Absolute folderol from an immoral religious fanatic incapable of grasping basic logic, including the differentiation of nature from nurture, prejudice from preference and legal obligations from rights, etc. Your most absurd and risible assertion is that freedom of association trumps civil rights against fundamental, inhumane discrimination.”

              The basic logic error is yours.

              Please differentiate nature from nurture – explaining what actual rights we might have to either.

              Please explain the difference between prejudice and preference.

              I have read nothing you have posted that sugests you have any clue what a right is.
              The law should not, and to a very large extent does not create positive obligations. It creates negative ones – that are all esentially forms of “do not use force to infringe on the rights of others”.

              Freedom of association IS a civil right.

              And yes ALL rights “trump” “fundimental inhumane discrimination”.

              That is inherently what a right is – something that government not only can not abridge, but must affirmatively protect.

              As noted before – ‘discrimination” is just another word for “choice” – usually though not always with negative connotations.

              You fail to grasp that when you talk of government, you are inherently talking of force.
              Every law that you pass, will ultimately be imposed by force – up to the point of death if it is sufficiently resisted. Ask Eric Garner.

              Are you prepared to kill people because they do not chose you ? For that is what your discrimination is, the failure of another to chose you.

              Presuming that people do so covertly, rather than overtly, how do you plan to address that ?

              If Master cake had claimed that they were too busy to fill the order of the gay couple.
              Or simply failed to deliver and claimed some business error how would you enforce that ?

              Your “inhumane human discrimination” is inherent to human nature.
              It is in fact a civil right.

  14. OK, I think I understand the rage from the right. It’s OK to have Parkland school shooting victims get death threats, Sandy Hook kids were actors, Ted Nugent said he wanted to blow away a Presidential candidate from a stage, comedians and actors get death threats. “FOX NEWS” strokes pure hate. The Obama’s still get death threats. People getting punched and kicked and spit on at Trump rallies that might have a sign or t-shirt that the mob don’t like, that is OK. But telling a professional liar that her business is not wanted is over the line.

    1. Did you hear Maxine Waters on MSNBC calling on citizens to harass Trump’s cabinet members? She said: “They’re not going to be able to go to a restaurant. They’re not going to be able to stop at a gas station. They’re not going to be able to shop at a store. The people are going to turn on them. They’re going to protest and absolutely harass them until they tell the president, ‘no I can’t hang with you.”

      This is how the left handles a policy disagreement. And they call Trump a fascist?

      1. Can you imagine Maxine’s scores on an IQ test and a personality inventory? Maxine’s been in Congress for 27 years. Atlanta could only put up with Cynthia McKinney for 8 years (and I’m not sure CM was ever as obnoxious as MW). One thing you can say with moral certainty about American political life is that California sucks.

          1. BobT … Maxine Waters has an IQ under the size of my 5″ spiked stilettos (that would be shoe size).
            Every single time she and Nancy Pelosi open their mouths it is an embarrassment to all women who have 2 cognitive brain cells firing at one time.

            Does this give you a clue to the IQ of those who continue to vote them into office?

            1. Exactly right. Pelosi is a gift that keeps on giving to Republicans, and so is Maxine. And I hear Peter Fonda’s IQ is about a 4.

              (And I must say that I find it to be an impressive skill and something to behold when a woman can rock a pair of 5″ stilettos 😉

              1. LOL … I must admit Bob it took a certain amount of time with will and a lot of balance. Finally one gets use to it and does it well.
                Back in the day that was how you got to the top of a mans world.
                No casting couch just nice legs, butt, well turned ankles, stilettos, a firm no and most of all EQUAL COMPETITIVE SMARTS.
                Use to work EVERY TIME without screaming sexual harassment.
                Imagine that! … LOL

        1. Nutchacha … as a native born and raised Californian I can honestly say there is a strong conservative group here. Unfortunately we have not yet overcome “MOONBEAM” and his CORRUPT band of renegade THIEVES who are more than happy to allow illegals to vote in US elections.

          The problem would easily be solved with every citizen (born or naturalized) having to present documentation in order to get voter ID.

            1. Thanks for the welcome Nick. I must admit it is nice to run into those here who have a thinking brain working for them?

              Frankly it has been my political activist experience debate with the left is for the most part pointless futility. Unless one finds purpose or pleasure in chatting with a granite blockhead.
              Though I must admit I find it fun in further exposing blatant stupidity when I run across it on a forum.
              I am a complete advocate for those who want to be something in life.
              If willfully stupid” on a public forum is the goal? Hey I am more than happy to help in the process. 😉

          1. So, how many illegals voted in the last presidential election? That you can PROVE did it? In New Hampshire, it was alleged that hundreds or thousands were bused in from Massachusetts. But nobody could identify where these buses were chartered from, who drove them, and so on. No one had actually SEEN these buses. PROVABLE cases of voter fraud in the US can be counted on just a few fingers.

            1. Jay S you are aware that illegals all can get a drivers license in CA are you not?
              Are you also aware with a CA drivers license you can become a registered voter … right?
              Let me step out on a slim limb with hack saw in hand and ASSUME you have enough cognitive brain cells to figure it out for yourself?
              If not … play a little self educational game and try and figure out how many illegals reside in CA … perhaps that will be your first clue.
              Then come back and look me up so I at least understand I am conversing with someone who has more than 2 brain cells firing simultaneously.
              Otherwise don’t waste my time and your poor fingers typing stupidity.

              1. Not only can you vote, but you are automatically signed up to vote when you get a license. This would mean that even 16 year olds could vote. Voter fraud is rampant in California and is never investigated because it keeps the communists in power. They’re the instigators of it.

      2. Could this be heard as a member of Congress actually inciting violence against Cabinet members?

        How do you suppose the leftist activist mob hears it? It’s a call to action to harass Trump’s cabinet members….and their families, friends and neighbors. In other words: Make it impossible for them to live their lives unless they give in to our demands…we (the Mob) will Destroy them. And who’s stoking hate and violence? Who’s the fascist?

        1. Maxine’s the inside man of the James T. Hodgkinson wing of the Democratic Party. Media Matters will hire FishWings to make the case in comboxes.

      3. Ask people of color if they are free to go where they want, ask the gay community if they are free to live their lives in peace. Ask a interracial couple in a white neighborhood if they can live in peace. Ask a black couple with teenage children what they have to teach their sons and daughters what to do if confronted with police. Ask US Hispanics born in this country why they have to prove they are citizens so they can vote. Yes it is a policy disagreement, but it is not the policies of the left that have brought these questions, is it?

            1. I’m from the most deliverence-esque area of Appalachia, and it resembles nothing of what you describe. Rebel flag-waving folks live next to gay couples who live next to biracial couples–for more than a generation now. Your lot is a self-serving and identifying group of victims in search of a crime. Or people who fell into a hot tub time machine in the 60s.

        1. Let me take a wild guess here FISHWINGS. Your mother dropped you on your head as an infant rendering you “willfully stupid” or no you one day grew up and chose that status all by your lonesome?

        2. So Fishy, apparently you haven’t heard that people of color are not only “free to go where they want,” they are now free to vote for whomever they want. Chance The Rapper said it: “Black people don’t have to be Democrats.” That’s huge –and bad news for Democrats who will now find themselves having to compete for the black vote instead of taking it for granted. Kanye West is free to wear a MAGA hat and publicly say Trump is his brother and a good man AND still have a new number one selling album. He calls it ‘free thinking.” It doesn’t get any more free than that, Fishy.

          So when your candidate doesn’t win the election and you have policy disagreements, it’s okay to harass Cabinet members and their families? Run them out of restaurants and movie theaters? Refuse to serve them? Literally attempt to ruin their lives until they give in to your demands? Turn off MSNBC, Fishy.

          1. Review what he wrote. He’s either completely socially isolated or he’s a Canadian who has never set foot south of the border.

          2. I don’t understand where you got that rant, but I’m sure the voices in your head told you so. Policy disagreements? I remember when the liberal media called you a commie if you didn’t support Dubya’s plan for war.

            1. “I remember when the liberal media called you a commie if you didn’t support Dunya’s plan for war”.
              Since that never happened, you should be aware of the distinction between “memories” and hallucinations.

            2. Really Fishy? I don’t understand where you got your ‘rant’ about ‘people of color’ not being free to go where they want in this country – including to positions of power. And Fishy, my ‘rant’ was actually in the news, but see when it is not good news for the Democrat party the media keeps things like this about Kanye and Chance The Rapper kind of quiet for them which is probably why you hadn’t heard it. Policy disagreement I’m referring to is the current issue being aired nonstop on CNN and MSNBC: Trump’s no tolerance border policy.

        3. Without paying attention to the rest of the juvenile hogwash you wrote, I focus on “Ask US Hispanics born in this country why they have to prove they are citizens so they can vote.”

          How do the people giving out ballots know the Hispanic was born in America? Don’t you think that one vote to one citizen is the appropriate way to manage the election process? Shouldn’t everyone show proof of the right to vote?

          1. There are books and records of people that can vote. I worked the polling stations for years If you are not in the book or records, you do not vote. Allen, do you have to be a jerk all the time? Or are you a professional?

            1. “There are books and records of people that can vote. I worked the polling stations for years If you are not in the book or records, you do not vote. ”

              How do you know the person is the one on the voter’s roll?

              Since voter rolls frequently have names of people that should have been removed how do you deal with that?

        4. Nailed it! These mindless Trumpian haters and rubes do neither logic nor reason-based comparative moral judgment, tout court!

          1. Portentous, you must hate minorities. Trump has improved their well being. Are you one like Fishwings that believes everyone should have the right to vote as many times as they want whether they are legal citizens or illegal aliens? That is nonsense but maybe your IQ is lower than Maxine’s.

            1. Where did I suggest such patently nonsense, gaslighting projector and hallucinator? Are you compos mentis?

              1. Allan pointed out the inherent contradiction in your arguments.

                You claim one thing, and yet the consequences of your efforts to achieve what you claim take you farther from it.
                While those you malign and claim actively seek to harm those you seek to help have in reality helped them far more than you.

                Your ideology claims the ends justify the means – but nor only can’t you deliver the ends you promise, but the very ideas you loath the most
                deliver more of what you promise than you do.

                Reality is a rocky shoal on which bad ideas are ground to splinters.

              2. “ Where did I suggest…”

                Pretentious, I actually read what you say and though you might not be able to understand why I believe that, you certainly won’t get an answer based on your silly and pretentious replies.

                1. Pretentious follows one of many common patterns among wing nuts.

                  Not making an argument for their own position while attacking those of others and pretending that you can not infer what someone beleives from what they oppose.

                  1. Pretentious is Pretentious
                    Peter Shill is a Shill
                    Anonymous is anonymous because she has no substance

                    I need not go any further.

                    1. I beg to differ.

                      I am looking to rumble. You must be wrong.

                      Just how prestentious is pretentious ? There must be something we can argue about ?
                      How much of a shill is peter,

                      how insubstantial is anonymous,

                      “I need not go any further.”

                      Bzzt, Wrong! You must go farther!

                      I am bored and arguing about god and test tubes is unfulfilling.

                      We must be able to disagree about just how insubstantial anonymous is ?

        5. There is no right to go where ever you want.

          What does “live in peace” mean ?

          The social contract requires government to protect us from the use of force to infringe on our actual rights by others.

          It does not require others to approve of our lives, to support our choices or even require others to associate with us.

          Everyone can be required to prove that they meet to constitutional requirements to vote.

          None of the above is “policy disagreement”

    2. OK, I think I understand the rage from the right.

      No, Fishwings.. You’re a doltish adolescent who understands only doltish adolescents.

      1. Discounting discomfiting evidence is your mindset, I get that, but if I am to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.

        1. You have no evidence. You corralled a mess of things which irritate you, some of which are indubitably fictional, some of which are the issue of random people over the internet (and I have news for you: prominent people get crank mail and threats. Lyndon Johnson got hundreds of threats a day), none of which are the issue of Republican officials and none of which are the issue of anyone as locally prominent as Stephanie Wilkerson. None of them have been endorsed by the moderator or anyone here. It was just a cheesy effort at deflection. You do that because you’re dishonest. Quit being a worthless punk and people will treat you with more respect.

          1. Portentous, do you know you are talking to a fish and agreeing with it. Certainly, a fishes IQ is less than that of Maxines.

      2. Nutchacha … BINGO!
        Fishwings has demonstrated to all on this forum and GOD only knows where else he is a “prepubescent wanker” trying to out think actual “cognitive thinking” adults. ROFL

        1. Since clinical thinker has demonstrated to all but Spinelli that her testicles are fully distended, maybe Trump will lose interest in grabbing clinical thinker’s crotch. But would clinical thinker still let Trump grab her crotch anyhow? Stay tuned.

    3. FishWings said: “People getting punched and kicked and spit on at Trump rallies that might have a sign or t-shirt that the mob don’t like, that is OK.”

      No, it’s not. The Democrat Mob isn’t just going after Trump and his administration, they are coming after Trump voters now too. Donny Deutsch called for it on MSNBC Morning Joe’s show. This kind of intimidation and harassment is how the Democrats handle policy disagreement. Who’s the fascist? Who’s stoking hate and inciting violence? Turn off MSNBC.

      1. Maybe we should shoulder AR-15’s in public, and march thru the streets with TIKI torches. What’s wrong snowflake? Don’t like when free people fight back against kakistocracy and totalitarian rule?

        1. So you agree with how Maxine Waters and the Democrats are calling for harassment against Cabinet members (and their families) and Trump supporters? They should be haarassed at work, at home, on the street, in their car, where they live, where they eat, where they shop, stalk them and their families – you know, because Trump and his supporters are “evil” and “barbaric” so they must be harassed and their lives destroyed? Because of policy disagreements? Turn off MSNBC Fishy.

          1. Did you see FishWings most recent comment? He either never leaves his mother’s basement or he’s writing from some U-district in Toronto or Brussels. He knows nothing.

              1. Given that clinical thinker does not masturbate [?], it is far less likely that clinical thinker experiences a clitoral orgasm during coitus. Perhaps that is why clinical thinker is so damned frigid.

            1. NII and TBob are legends in their own minds, that’s for sure, They also remind me of the spineless cowards who stand at the far edge of a fight, and when they see the man down, run up and kick the guy down and walk away and tell everybody, did you see me kick that guys ass?

              1. hey Fishy, may I point out that not once in any of my comments to you did I personaly insult or attack you, other than to suggest you turn off MSNBC?

                1. No, I insulted him repeatedly. I shouldn’t do that. but I’m tempted because he’s part of the crew here who has nothing to say other than puerile taunts and jabs. I’ve begun to think there’s nothing left of portside politics but that.

                  1. “puerile” — one of Nutchab’s favorite words

                    To better understand the definition, please go look in the mirror Nii.

            2. The vacuous nonentity and intellectual manqué is none other than your confirmation-biased and jaundiced self, Nutcake!

  15. They should be happy to have been kicked out. Why would you want to give them your money if they are so against you? Same as the Christian cake baker not making cake for gay wedding. Would you really want to eat the cake/food if the baker/cook is so distracted by his/her religion/politics so as not be able to behave professionally? At least the restaurant owner was honest. But all that aside….I ‘d be afraid to eat there….because she might spit in your food of you looked at her the wrong way.

    1. They should be happy to have been kicked out. Why would you want to give them your money if they are so against you?

      Why? It would never occur to anyone that someone in business didn’t want a dinner tab for 8 people.

      Would you really want to eat the cake/food if the baker/cook is so distracted by his/her religion/politics so as not be able to behave professionally?

      He’s not distracted at all. He doesn’t cater parody weddings.

      The poof pair were trolling around for someone to sue. It was a harassment campaign.

  16. Darren, I replied to Enigma’s~4AM posting, but it seems to be lost. I don’t have time today to rewrite the post can you find the post and add it to the reply on that posting? Thanks.

  17. Believing that businesses should be open for all customers, I disagree with the restaurant owner.

    That said, did you really use the phrase “utter lack of civility”, to defend Sanders? And then not challenge her comments about treating others respectfully?

    I’d like to say you crack me up. But you are a danger. We have an administration totally bent on lack of civility and lying about others almost 100% of the time. An administration horribly destroying families legally attempting asylum. And you wait for the devil’s apprentice to chime in on lack of civility?

    Civility and lack of civility starts at the top. Maybe some day you’ll grow up and stop blaming others for the lying messes created by the racist sack of shit in the white house……………naw….you’ll never grow up.

    1. Civility and lack of civility starts at the top. Maybe some day you’ll grow up and stop

      You’ve grossly libeled someone on a memorial thread just today. You’re damaged goods and a long period of silence from you would benefit everyone exposed to you. You’re certainly not in a position to instruct the president or any normal individual on any matter – aesthetic or moral.

      1. “You’ve grossly libeled someone on a memorial thread just today.” -said by the truly insufferable one (Nii)

        Oh, puh-lease.

        Here, honey. Chew on this:

        “Instead, he took to denouncing retired military figures like John Batiste as the “I-know-better generals” for second-guessing Rumsfeld, whom he continued to support after even William Kristol had begun calling for the defense secretary’s resignation. Later, when the surge was proposed, Krauthammer came out against the idea, explaining in a 2007 column that it “will fail” due to the perfidy and incompetence of the Maliki government; today, he deems the strategy to have been a success. Thus it is that this most respected of conservative commentators may be the only pundit in the country to have been wrong about every major U.S. foreign policy question of the last decade.

        “Krauthammer hasn’t fared much better in the realm of domestic predictions. In his aforementioned column on Obama—the one in which he praises the Senator’s blackness, not the one in which he attacks everyone else for doing the same—our columnist explains that, should Obama run, “he will not win. The reason is 9/11.” In the meantime, he tells us, the White House will probably go to a Republican—“say, 9/11 veteran Rudy Giuliani.” Krauthammer also warns that the “reflexive anti-war sentiments” of the left “will prove disastrous for the Democrats in the long run—the long run beginning as early as November ‘08.”

        “Though well up to speed on his silly-predictions quota, Krauthammer would still be in danger of losing his parking spot at The Weekly Standard if he failed to turn out the occasional bit of preternatural hypocrisy as well. Fear not. Two days after the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, he appeared on Fox News order to point out the inevitable Islam connection:

        “Krauthammer: And he did leave the return address ‘Ismail Ax.’ ‘Ismail Ax.’ I suspect it has some more to do with Islamic terror and the inspiration than it does with the opening line of Moby Dick.

        “Brit Hume: Which was, “My name is Ismael.”

        “Close enough, Brit. But in his next column, Krauthammer denounces “the inevitable rush to get ideological mileage out of the carnage,” citing gun control advocates for their bad taste in drawing social conclusions from tragedy. “Perhaps in the spirit of Obama’s much-heralded post-ideological politics we can agree to observe a decent interval of respectful silence before turning ineffable evil and unfathomable grief into political fodder.” He had already gotten his own licks in, after all.

        “So, there you go. That’s Charles Krauthammer.”

          1. I’m not “Diane.” That you continue to believe that I am means that everything you say must be discounted, if not totally dismissed. (You need to get some help with this “Diane” fixation of yours.)

            1. Not interested in your state-approved propaganda. I’m no fan of Krauthammer, but do please find something of substance. Maybe something from the Marvel universe might be more truthfully applicable.

                1. Edit out that question mark.

                  Now you have a good one, slohrss29. And try getting out of your comfort zone.

                  A good number of Americans have difficulty with the truth, preferring to spin it.

                  If the shoe fits.

                  1. I always challenge my comfort zone. I test my logic. I was a major anti-Bush contributor on here for the years of that administration. The Krauthammer philosophy was proven wrong in totality; however, I see your lot having common ground with his viewpoint. I don’t need to refer to the intellectually dishonest publications referenced here.

      2. “You’ve grossly libeled someone on a memorial thread”

        While the world would likely be considerably better if Sanders departed (and offered us an even longer period of silence) – am pretty sure her lying, sack of shit “fake news” will be back Monday. Unless you are planning on knocking her off before then?

        as for instructing the president – you may be correct that I have not taught whiny, cowardly, lying, kindergartners. I left the nazi separating families part out in deference to your anticipated tears.

        1. You libeled Charles Krauthammer, who has just died. He was a great asset to public discourse. You are an asset to no one.

          1. incorrect thread – maybe a RIF program would be of use locating proper threads?

            btw – just because you find the truth uncomfortable – doe not make it less true. You might want to google krauthammer/revisionist and eat your words……and read something longer then a twit’s tweets

            1. just because you find the truth uncomfortable –

              You lied. You’re ‘comfortable’ with self-aggrandizing political fictions and with using memorial threads to mouth off, because cretin.

              1. BWAHHH! BWAHHHHHH! sniffle! sniffle!….it’s a memorial (once again your vision is poor and you are on the wrong thread) thread and that means you can not say…………………… (please fill in the reason we can not quote kraut…….own words)

                list any specific lie and we can address? However, your arguments are so weak (actually non-existent) that all you’ve you done is again and again and again make non-supported accusations. I get that it is difficult defending warmongering garbage. Who knows…..among your seeming dozens of daily weak posts, maybe you’ll eventually get better?

      3. This president is “a normal individual” only where the norm is the collective insanity of a funny farm

    2. What a business SHOULD do, and what it can be compelled by law to do are or SHOULD be two radically different things.

      Red Hen will learn whether their choice was wise or not based on whether there are significant protests and increases or decreases in patronage.

      We all get a clear vote on Red Hen’s choices.
      We do not need laws to guess at our views on the subject we can directly express them ourselves.

      1. Yep, thanks. Let them throw out a dinner bill for 8, while insulting a high percentage of adults in that particular market niche. I’m good with it. I suspect this person was wealthy to begin with; it’s no skin off her nose if she doesn’t want to serve any particular people. And that is fine. She probably really enjoys that big gold star she can wear for her ingroup.

        1. She may be. Her degrees include one from a fancy private research university and from a public ivy in a state where I do not think she had antecedent residency. Her husband is tenured faculty at VMI, so the family has a steady income and has some margin for her earnings to fluctuate. She’s had several businesses over the years, so is high energy. She’s also president of one of the local retail trade associations. I think with this TDS maneuver, her good fortune is about to run out.

    3. This administration has had to deal with the greatest hostility of any prior.

      Nor is it confined to the administration.

      The left lost the election because it called nearly half the country “hateful, hating haters”
      and thinks it will fix it by doubling down.

      We got Trump because of YOU.

      What Lie did Trump tell that was close to “if you like your doctor you can keep them” ?

      Most of us do not give a damn about the lefts daily parsing of Trump’s tweets and hypertechnical and often wrong claims they are lies.

      The Trump campaign WAS wiretapped, and spied on.
      The investigation of Clinton’s misconduct was rigged.

      As we dig further back into the Trump Russia investigation we find NOTHING – except a setup.

    4. Bill W … “An administration horribly destroying families legally attempting asylum.”:

      Bill are you actually stupid enough to believe that crap?
      Or are you simply a propagandized lemming of the left.

      Think with your BIG BRAIN little dude and learn the law before you rail on about what clearly lack knowledge of … in this case the immigration laws chiseled on the books for at least 25 years.

      Unless “willfully stupid” is your goal?

      We can all sit back and try and help you on your quest.

      1. with loser arguments weak on facts (ICE is preventing asylum seekers from crossing at proper locations and instead forcing them to cross at non-approved locations – so they can be arrested) you appear to be 100% at odds with your handle.

        btw – in 25 years we learned that “only I can solve this problem”….became a only congress can solve the problem……..which became an executive order (which days before the lying sack of shit said he couldn’t do) stopping the horrible separation process conservatives toast as the apex of conservative policy and thought.

        1. Bill W … let’s start with basics first little buddy.
          How exactly am I “100% at odds with your handle”?

          Next you say “”ICE is preventing asylum seekers from crossing at proper locations and instead forcing them to cross at non-approved locations”

          OH MY GOD COME ON BILL … you actually have me rolling on the floor laughing at you right now. I bet everyone reading this is also laughing.

          Why don’t you try and kick start your apparent non functioning brain into gear and realize “THE ICE MADE ME DO IT” defense seldom works in the real world.
          Nor has a like argument worked for lawbreakers Ever in my experience with law breakers (emphasis on EVER).
          Try it with a judge and see how you fare little buddy.
          Let me know when it happens so I can be there and laugh when you are clapped in irons and dragged to the federal clink for a few. I have to admit your gross stupidity is indeed entertaining.

          Next bone up on the law, when it started, how it started, why it started then get back to me with a response that is actually void of the emotional BOO HOO BAAAAA HAAA.
          Personally I hate a whining adult acting like a tantrum throwing 4 year old. Never worked with my 4 year old and certainly won’t with you … someone I assume expects to be treated as an adult.

          1. More commonly, it is “The Donald made me do it”.
            That is the “justification” used for both the tantrum thrown at the restaurant Sec. Nielsen was at, and refusing to serve Sarah Sanders and family.
            You can easily find examples of attempts to legitimize these incidents as you read some of these comments.

    5. The are centuries of fighting the efforts of religious beleivers to convert their beleives into law.
      There is no reason that what you “beleive” is any better basis for law.

      Law is the conditions that justify the governments use of force.
      Your beleif is not sufficient justification.

      Civility is an aspiration. It is not an obligation. You are entitled to be secure in your rights and property against the unjustified use of force or fraud to infringe or confiscate.

      You are not entitled to civility, you are not entitled to respect, you are not entitled to be believed.
      Respect is earned. Civility is only due to those who listen as well as speak.
      Real tolerance means accepting that others disagree and that they are free to do so, and that you are obligated not to use force to compel them to live according to your beleifs.

      I am not unterested in some juvenile “but they started it” nonsense.

      The left is not civil – it has not been for a long time.
      The left is not tolerant – it has not been for a long time – if ever.

      During my lifetime it is primarly the left that has sought to harness the awesome power of government to acomplish through force what they were unable to get people to agree to voluntarily.

      Trump is the direct consequence of the intolerance and hostility of the left.
      You have called everyone who has differed even slightly with you racist, lying hateful, mysoginst, homophobic, so broadly that your insults have lost meaning.
      You have leveled the same accusations at every republican candidate in 2016.
      Is Rand Paul a racist, or Ben Carson, or Cruz, or Romney, or McCain ?
      The only difference between your treatment of Trump is the amount of froth on your lips.
      You have gone beyond candidates – to labeling half the country as hateful hating haters.
      And you dare whisper about civility ?

      A large portion of us do not give a damn what Trump says to or about the left or the press – because we are tired of your insults and if Trump is dishing back what you has served on ALL OF US – all the better.

      I am not interested in cries of liar, from liars, of racist from those who have built a temple to racism.

      I am not happy with Trump, I was not happy with Bush or Obama or Clinton or any president in my lifetime.
      Thus far Trump has delivered more of what he promised than Obama, and is less offensive than Clinton.

      Bill Clinton ended the myth that good character was a prerequisite to being a good president, you you idiots managed to run Hillary Clinton – the one person more repugnant than Trump and are shocked that she lost.

      1. Take note of the headline of the paper on record that has twisted the truth or completely left it out, “was first accused of bias”

        The word is ***accused*** and that took place before the lengthy and expensive investigation that proved the accusation was wrong. Take note that this article was written when the left was in turmoil over Trump’s success. You like hit pieces and bold-faced-lies.

        Note, did the NYTimes state that the government could not prove its case? That the case was political? If Enigma was accused of murder and then found innocent and the real murder placed in jail and if Enigma became Mayor or was running for Mayor and if Enigma was not liked by the New York Times their headline would read … Blood in the Street How Enigma got his start and Was First Accused of Murder. The article would talk all about the accusation and might not even mention that he was found innocent and someone else was convicted and serving time for the murder.

        Enigma, you are a great disappointment. You are not an honest person.

          1. How old are you anonymous?
            1. Your comments put you at maybe 14 going on 4.
            2. Your IQ appears to be less than my shoe size.
            3. Your anonymous handle shows you are a coward.
            All indicative of a bed wetting tantrum throwing 4 year old whose mommy can not get him/her to pee in the toilet over his/her diaper.

            1. She professes to be an elderly woman. She uses three sock-puppets and appropriates my handle from time to time.

              1. OMG … elderly woman? Christ she has not learned much with all of that “elderly history” has she?
                ROFL at her witlessness.
                Then dishonest/thief to top it off … who would guess? … LOL

              2. Nutchab is spreading lies:

                “She professes to be an elderly woman. She uses three sock-puppets and appropriates my handle from time to time.”

                Not true. Not one word of it.

              1. Not a response dear. Why don’t you try and sharpen your 4 year old witt and actually answer the question.
                Not ashamed you come off as “willfully stupid” are you?

                1. And a giddy one on her high horse has ridden in…

                  You have a good one. And be careful up there.

                  1. Oh worry not sweetheart.
                    You can be assured I have a “good one” (whatever “good one” might be) EVERYDAY and twice on Sunday 🙂
                    Oh and let me see I was about 20 when I conquered HEIGHTS … so you see sweetheart I have a lot of experience way up here. 😉
                    Especially when dealing with the “too stupid to recognize stupid” among us.
                    Actually dealing with “stupid” is one of the easier tasks in life one can encounter.

                    1. You may well be entering a manic phase, sweetie, so do take care of yourself.

                      (And by the way, “…thinker” doesn’t apply to you.)

                    2. ROFL … don’t count on it cupcake. 😉
                      Have I missed your answer to how old you are?
                      You don’t have to be exact just give me a general decade. Somehow elderly does not compute because the elderly educated were a lot smarter than you appear.
                      My guess is the late to mid 90’s ?
                      Yes still up here on the designated HIGH HORSE you awarded me.
                      Did I properly thank you for that accolade?
                      If not THANK YOU from one smart accomplished woman to another not so smart he/she.

                      Okay gotta go dear have spent all of the time on you that you deserve. I don’t think you can top the “stupid” you have already achieved on this particular thread. Besides that you have become boring for us all. 😉

        1. “I doubt these are spontaneous. Some sorosphere outfit is organizing them.”

          So what ?

          I am elated that the left is resorting to these tactics.
          Doing so legitimizes all forms of private discrimination.

          We are free to act out side of govenrment to express our views and oppinions.
          Of politics, religion, sexual preference, life style choices.
          We are not free to use force.

  18. I thought this was settled in the ’60s but the Supreme Court changed that when it ruled that a bakery can pick and choose its customers based on the moral beliefs of the bakers. It’s a reasonable extension that a restaurant can pick and choose its patrons on the moral beliefs of its owners . Imo, the bakers should have baked the cake and Sanders should have been able to eat in peace. Protesters could have made their point after Sanders and Nielsen left the restaurants. Trump has lowered the standard by his rhetoric at his forever campaign events and has unleashed a whole lot of protestors against his administration’s depravity.

    1. The Left has long held the belief that they can be conscientious objectors. They can drive conservative speakers off university campuses. Refuse to serve conservatives in restaurants. Harass them at their homes. They believe that they are standing up for what is right.

      There are people with religious beliefs who believe that if they participated in a gay wedding, they were committing a sin that would weigh on their conscience. I don’t agree with them, but that’s what they believe. They, too, think they are standing up for their right to say no. Is it interfering with their freedom of religion to force them to participate in a religious ceremony with which they disagree?

      One of the objections from the right is that the left gets away with it all the time, but the right is never allowed to say, no, I don’t want to do that.

      So which is it? Does an establishment have the right to refuse service to anyone?

      Realistically, if all restaurants politicized, and there were only some restaurants that prominent Liberals could go to, and some that prominent Republicans can go it, it would alienate customers. But some could make it some sort of business model. Who knows.

      There are good arguments on both sides about discrimination and serving the public. We’ll have to see how this plays out to make sure it’s as fair as possible for everyone.

      But if restaurants and movie theaters and universities are going to keep refusing to serve people based on their mainstream political views, then bakeries, florists, and photographers can refuse to get involved in gay weddings.

    2. The issue is settled by the constitution and natural rights.

      That on occasion the Supreme court reads what is written rather than what it wishes was written does not change what the constitution says.

      All rights not explicitly given to government belong to the people.

      Including the right to decide who they will do business with and who they will not.

      What I find most interesting is those on the left oppose this – except those rare occasions that it works to their benefit.

      But that the left drowns in hypocracy and is an ideology is complete contradiction with itself.

      1. “But that the left drowns in hypocracy and is an ideology is complete contradiction with itself.”

        We see that daily here. But what do you expect when you base decisions in the end on “feelings.”

        Kind of like the current immigrant thing. If I remember correctly, didn’t this all start in like ’97 or something? But the left has done a knockup job on jumping from “but… Russia” to this. But, again, it’s all about “feelings” now, isn’t it?

        1. Americans have been fighting over immigration for centuries.

          I would prefer broad immigration. But all choices come with consequences.

          If we reduce border enforcement to barring criminals, are we prepared to accept the results ?

          Are we prepared to accept that our minimum wage laws will fail. That our social safetynet will fail ?

          I am not interested in a discussion of broadly free immigration with those unwilling to even consider the consequences.

          All law is ultimately the use of force.
          Laws on immigration inherently mean arresting people, possibly separating families and removing people by force.
          Laws are not enforced through persuasion or feather boas.

          1. It seems to me it’s pretty simple really. Humans love free stuff. Stop handing out free stuff, and mainly those will come who will work to make their opportunity.

    3. bettykath … I believe the actual SCOTUS ruling was based on “Religious Belief” (constitutionally protected) rather than “moral belief” which has nothing to do with the constitution as written EVER. As far as I know. If you have proof otherwise please present it I am open to change my mind.

      “Trump has lowered the standard by his rhetoric at his forever campaign events and has unleashed a whole lot of protestors against his administration’s depravity.

      As someone who has been an adult while you were most likely still pissing your pampers.
      I have noticed a decline in both ethical and moral behavior since Billy Boy was let off the hook for diddling his intern and than claiming “I never touched that woman”.

      So do you want to accuse Trump of the Clinton depravity of what 24 years now carried on by Bush and worse Obama?

      So NO DEAR the standard has not been lowered it has been raised considerably by Trump unless you are too young to have a long term perspective of history.

      1. Are you compos mentis, ludicrous popinjay? Trump is unassailably, to any rational and well-educated individual, the nadir of moral turpitude, venality and democratic institutional and institutional subversion.

        BTW, SCOTUS wrongly decided the baker case, since freedom of religion was not intended as a rationalization for dishonoring equal treatment in the public sphere of expression, association or commerce, period, intellectual vacuity.

        1. “Trump is unassailably, to any rational and well-educated individual, the nadir of moral turpitude, venality and democratic institutional and institutional subversion.”

          Again are you capable of an argument that is not fallacy ?

          Trump is credibly accused of sleeping with porn stars and “pussy grabbing”.

          Clinton is accused of sexual harrassment and rape.
          But Trump is the “nadir of moral turpitude” ?

          We can debate shades of differences between Franken and Biden and Trump.
          The Weinsteins and Clinton’s are in a far worse catagory.
          That you fail to grasp that burns your credibility.

          “BTW, SCOTUS wrongly decided the baker case, since freedom of religion was not intended as a rationalization for dishonoring equal treatment in the public sphere of expression, association or commerce, period, intellectual vacuity.”

          So you know what the founders “intended” ?
          In fact until the passage of the Civil Rights act in 1964, there was no legal basis to interfere with private discrimination.

          SCOTUS wrongly decided the bakers case.
          Free association,
          Free expression,
          Freedom of contract,
          Are all Rights – the right to choose, includes the right to choose badly.
          SCOTUS got the outcome correct but missed atleast 3 compelling constitutional justifications – aside from religion.

          Kennedy’s oppinion is garbage – the issue is not the hostitilty of a single commissioner to Phillips religion.

          Embedded in Kennedy’s fallacious reasoning is the same fallacious reasoning that resulted in these stupid laws.

          We can not bar overt discrimination because that will just result in covert discrimination.

          But for the fact that one commissioner was stupid enough to publicly express his hostility to Phillips beliefs Kennedy would have ruled the other way.

          In otherwords – according to MasterCake discrimination is acceptable – so long as it is covert.

          Is that really what you beleive ?

          We want the basis for the choices that people make to be made publicly, so that we can judge them.

          To choose to support Red Hen’s choices or oppose we must know the reasons for those choices.

          We do not want Red Hen (or Master Cake) to manufacture pretext’s so we have to guess their intent.

          Kennedy (and you) are giving your impramatur to hypocracy.

        2. Portentous, Mr. pomposity in drag, sounds as if he doesn’t like Trump. Is Mr. pomposity jealous? Alternatively, is Mr. pomposity trying to hit on clinicalthinker?

    4. “Trump has lowered the standard by his rhetoric at his forever campaign events and has unleashed a whole lot of protestors against his administration’s depravity.”

      So, it’s Trump’s fault because he started it by holding the severed head of his political enemy in effigy, pulled over status, shouted down opponents’ speakers on campus and threatened to hurt them, unfriended friends and family in FB because they voted for Hillary, claimed that if Hillary won, death vans would literally be coming for the blacks and Jews (yes, I actually heard multiple people tell me this with a straight face), weaponized the IRS, DOJ, NSA, and FBI against private citizens who hold opposing political beliefs…

      Oh, wait, Trump didn’t do any of that.

      What he did do is bragged about what groupies allowed him to do, while Democratic darling Weinstein actually did allegedly rape women in his hotel room, directed there by other women, and ignored by iconic actresses. He also says mean things on Twitter, likes to brag, and has been divorced multiple times and seems to be a serial cheater…JFK was infamous for his love of strippers, had his mistress Marilyn Monroe sing, “Happy Birthday Mr President” on national TV in a virtually see-through dress in the most suggestive manner possible, and bragged about making his back feel better. Jackie must have just loved that. Teddy Kennedy made the waitress sandwich assault. MLK was a serial cheater. Gandhi used to sleep in a bad full of naked teenage girls to test his chastity. Bill Clinto was a serial cheater and an alleged rapist who visited orgy island, infamous for the sexual abuse of underage girls. What is it with prominent men and cheating?

      There is a lot of valid criticism of Trump, as there is for most Presidents. But “he started it” doesn’t hold water. You will recall that Mitt Romney was one of the nicest guys to run for President in modern times. The media pilloried him for putting his dog’s carrier on the roof of the car (as people did back in the era when kids could ride in the back of pickup trucks with no seatbelt), but they ignored Obama actually eating dog in Indonesia. The former, the dog enjoyed, even if we now know it wasn’t safe, the latter, the dog did not enjoy so much. Anne Romney was savaged because she showered her considerable finances on her beloved dressage horse, Rafalca, championing her and sponsoring her rider in elite athletic events all the way up to the Olympics. How sweet to pamper her pony and sponsor riders who could not afford to compete at that level. Carl Lagerfeld has a world traveling very lovely kitty who has her own chef and will inherit in his will. What was Anne supposed to do? Buy a grade horse and an ill-fitting saddle and feed her moldy hay? Or they shrieked about the cost of her wardrobe while ignoring the cost of Hillary’s and Michelle’s. You will recall all the Obama couture? Totally fine.

      If Mitt Romney is going to be treated like an evil devil, then there is literally no way to be nice enough to satisfy Democrats, who will ignore anything including alleged rape from their own politicians. Bill wasn’t even asked about it until Hillary’s career was dead.

      1. What Trump did in directly — in real time and place — by inciting violence against dissenters at his campaign rallies was patently illegal and emblematic of the fascist mindset!

        1. “a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.”

          Eliminate the apocalyptic rhetoric and you have nothing.

Leave a Reply