Category Archives: Electoral College

Hillary’s book ‘Stronger Together’ tanks: only 2,912 copies sold in first week

As her poll numbers tumble, with Reuters’ latest showing her 242 Electoral College votes are now in a virtual tie with Trump’s 243, there’s more bad news for Hillary. (See “Reuters polls show huge electoral shift to Trump despite Hillary outspending Trump on campaign ads by a whopping 3300%“)

ZeroHedge reports that Hillary’s newest book piece of crap, Stronger Together, which provides a policy blueprint for where she hopes to take the country if she is elected president, sold just 2,912 copies in its first week on sale, according to Nielsen BookScan.


As described by the New York Times — the rag that openly advocates journalists abandon even a pretense at objectivity in reporting on Trump, and calls on Google to suppress searches for Hillary Clinton’s health — the book is named after Hillary’s campaign slogan. According to the book jacket, Stronger Together offers readers “specific and practical solutions, while also articulating a bold and expansive vision of change and renewal” in 250 pages of bullet-point policy ideas, like “launch a national initiative for suicide prevention” and “humanely address the Central American migrant crisis,” with photographs of Hillary and her running-mate co-demon Tim Kaine on the campaign trail, as well as highlights from her speeches.

Blah, blah, blah.

All lies, from a clinically pathological liar and sociopath.

The NYT says that Hillary and Kaine have promoted her book on the campaign trail, but the sales figure, which tallies about 80% of booksellers nationwide and does not include e-books, firmly makes the book what the publishing industry would consider a flop.

The book’s page on — the same that first sold, then banned the book Nobody Died at Sandy Hook (which you can download and read here — for free!) — garnered an average 2-stars rating from 1,051 customer reviews.

amazon-reviews-for-hillary-clintons-new-book-stronger-togetherHere’s a sample of the reviews. Enjoy!😀

I bought this thinking it would be a how-to book. I wanted ‘How to set up your own Foundation for fun and profit.’ Also, would like to have seen a chapter on ‘Ten easy steps to setting up your own secure server in a bathroom.’ I do hear there’s going to be a sequel, tentatively called ‘The Art of the Shakedown.’ Should be interesting.

“[This] Reviewer was assassinated by Hillary Rodham Clinton

Imagine my dismay when key parts of her life were omitted, would have made for far better reading if she had included all of the below starting with flunking the D.C. Bar Exam to:
• Was removed from her House Judiciary Committee staffer job because of incompetence and lying.
• The Whitewater scandal.
• Married a serial liar and cheater, who occasionally had sexual encounters with nonconsenting partners.
• Lied about “sniper fire” in an attempt to simulate exposure to danger in a war zone.
The subject of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” that led to the impeachment and disbarment of her husband
• Took crockery, furniture, artwork and other items from the White House — had to return and/or pay for them.
• Said “what difference, at this point, does it make” about four brave people killed in Libya as a direct result of her failure to protect them on the anniversary of 9/11.
• Totally ignored the structure and rules for the handling of sensitive national security information.
• Amassed a personal fortune with “speaking fees” and payments from private sector political donors and foreign governments into transparent ‘foundations’ in obvious exchange for future political favor.

I was going to read this book…..I really was. But just as I got started, I found myself under sniper fire, passed out, and fell and hit my head. After that I got double vision and had to wear glasses that were so damn thick I couldn’t even see to read. As if that wasn’t enough, I then had an allergic reaction to something and started coughing so hard I spit out what looked like a couple of lizard’s eyeballs, my limbs locked up, and I passed out and fell down again, waking up only to find out I had been diagnosed with pneumonia 2 days earlier. Somehow I managed to power through it all, but it’s a good thing I was able to make a small fortune on this random small trade in the commodities market (cattle futures or some such thing) and then, miracle of all miracles, a few banks offered me a few million to just talk to their employees for a few minutes – and all that really helped out because I swear I was dead broke and couldn’t figure out how I was gonna come up with the 6 bucks to pay for this book, let alone pay the $1,500 for my health insurance this month. I still want to read it, but, honestly, what difference at this point does it make? I hear it sucks anyway.

Pre-ordered an autographed copy but had to return it after this week’s announcement as I was worried it was contaminated with pneumonia bacteria. I didn’t want to end up exposed to the illness like her grandkids in Chelsea’s apartment she was playing with on 9/11 after she collapsed, or the little girl she was hugging in the street afterwards. Thought about ordering the Kindle version but I thought it might open my device up to being hacked by communist countries. I wasn’t too surprised to see Tim Kaine on the front cover giving the traditional National Socialist salute, I felt it fitting. Strongly recommended for those who believe the USA isn’t anything special and should be more like the peaceful utopias of North Korea, Iran, or Cuba.

This book begins well. The first sentence says, ‘America is great because America is good.’ It goes downhill from there. My experience has been that people want to know the inside truth about their role models. I read page after page looking for tips on how to ask for big payments from rich foreign money launderers, military dictators or junk food manufacturers. It was just a bunch of malarkey even more boring than a 6th grade Common Core history book. I wanted to find out how to delete hundreds of thousands of voter registrations and emails, but no such luck. This book talks about how every vote counts. As long as it’s for Hillary Clinton! [seriously: I did skim it and it is sooooooo boring and these are two boring people with very little to say except ‘vote for me!’]

All in all, I appreciated reading the lies saturating every page. I learned that it’s possible to rise to the top and break all social barrier – as long as you were already at the top and had lost all sense of morality you can achieve anything! Thanks, Hillary!

In contrast, Donald Trump’s book, Great Again: How to Fix Our Crippled America, received an average 4½-stars rating  from 1,291 customer reviews on Amazon.


Reuters polls show huge electoral shift to Trump despite Hillary outspending Trump on campaign ads by a whopping 3300%

As reported by ZeroHedge, whereas on August 26, 2016 Reuters had predicted a landslide victory for Hillary:


18 days later, Reuters’ polls of September 13 show a big surge in Electoral College votes for Trump, from 171 to 243, and a drop in Hillary’s votes from 295 to 242, so that the two are now virtually tied.


The map below shows Reuters‘ latest prediction of what the 2016 Electoral College map will look like once all the votes are counted. Notice that the entire central portion of the U.S. has turned red (including Colorado and New Mexico) along with Florida and South Carolina in the Southeast. Reuters even moved Pennsylvania out of the Democrat column and into the “Too Close To Call” column.


Most importantly, in the 20 days between August 26 and Sept. 15, the battleground states are shifting to Trump:

  1. Colorado: Support for Trump increased from 40% to 43%; Hillary’s decreased from 43% to 40%.
  2. Florida: Support for Trump increased from 42% to 50%; Hillary’s decreased 49% to 46%.
  3. Iowa: Support for Trump increased from 40% to 49%; Hillary’s decreased from 43% to 41%.
  4. Nevada: Support for Trump increased from 39% to 41%; Hillary’s decreased from 41% to 39%.
  5. Pennsylvania: Support for Trump increased from 43% to 44%; Hillary’s decreased from 50% to 46%.
  6. South Carolina: Support for Trump increased from 46% to 51%; Hillary’s stayed at 46%.


To top it off, Hillary’s losing although she’s spending 3,300% more on campaign ads than Trump.

Below is a diagram from Ad Age (via ZeroHedge) of money spent on campaign ads by Trump and Hillary:

trump-vs-hillary-campaign-ad-spendingTrump has spent a total of $4,420,819, which is only 3% of the $145,299,717 that Hillary has spent. Put another way, Hillary’s campaign has spent nearly 3,300% on ads compared to what the Trump campaign has spent.

According to Advertising Age, between now and Election Day, the Clinton campaign and its allied super PACs have booked $145.3 million in ad time — more than 33 times the $4.4 million for Trump and his groups.


If Hillary Clinton dies or is incapacitated, Nov. 8 election may be delayed or scrapped

It’s not paranoia if it’s true.

We already know Hillary Clinton is ethics and morality challenged. In fact, were it not for the equally corrupt FBI, this woman should have been arrested, tried, and serving time in prison for violating U.S. laws in having an unsecured — and illegal — private email server as Secretary of State.

The fact the the Democrats could overlook her legal and moral failings to select her as their presidential candidate is not surprising, which is in itself a testimony to the corruption of Democrats and their party. (See “After Hillary’s Benghazi hearing, 100K new donors flood campaign with money”)

Moral considerations aside, there is the matter of Hillary’s health. Why would  the Democrats select as their presidential candidate a woman who is clearly very ill, who —

Hillary being helped up stairs 2016

Some of us in the Alternative Media even speculated if this is Obama’s way to stay in power beyond the constitutionally-prescribed two consecutive presidential terms of office — that he might just suspend the November 8 election if and when Hillary is incapacitated.

Our worst fears turn out to be real.

Steven Nelson reports for U.S. News and World Report, August 30, 2016:

The presidential election could be delayed or scrapped altogether if conspiracy theories become predictive and a candidate dies or drops out before Nov. 8. The perhaps equally startling alternative, if there’s enough time: Small groups of people hand-picking a replacement pursuant to obscure party rules.”

Nelson writes that while the possible last-minute replacement of a candidate attracts some cyclical coverage, “this year the scenario would play out after consistent conjecture about the health of” Hillary Clinton, who will be 69 this October, and — referring to “apparently unfounded speculation he will drop out” — the “hidden agenda of” Donald Trump who, at age 70, would be the oldest person elected president.

Prominent law professors have pondered what might happen if a presidential candidate dies or drops out before the election:

  • University of Notre Dame law professor John Nagle says “There’s nothing in the Constitution which requires a popular election for the electors serving in the Electoral College“, meaning the body that officially elects presidents could convene without the general public voting. “It’s up to each state legislature to decide how they want to choose the state’s electors. It may be a situation in which the fact that we have an Electoral College, rather than direct voting for presidential candidates, may prove to be helpful.”
  • In a 1994 article in the Arkansas Law ReviewYale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar considers what he calls the “far-fetched” possibility of a special presidential election being pushed to after Jan. 20, with the speaker of the House serving as acting president until an election could pick “a real president for the remainder of the term.” Amar recommends an up to four-week postponement of Election Day if a candidate dies just before voting, or even if there’s a major terrorist attack.

The Role of Congress

Congress does have the power to change the election date under Article II of the Constitution, which allows federal lawmakers to set dates for the selection of presidential electors and when those electors will vote. But Congress would be up against a de facto December deadline, as the Constitution’s 20th Amendment requires that congressional terms expire Jan. 3 and presidential terms on Jan. 20. Though it’s conceivable to split legislative and presidential elections, they generally happen at the same time. And if the entire general election were to be moved after Jan. 3, Congress effectively would have voted themselves out of office.

John Fortier, director of the Democracy Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center, says he’s not certain that Congress would reach consensus on moving an election date if a candidate died, meaning parties would need to formally – or informally – decide on a replacement. If the election date was moved by Congress, ongoing absentee or early voting would make for a mess.

The Role of the Parties

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have rules and guidelines for presidential ticket replacements:

  • If Hillary were to fall off the ticket, Democratic National Committee (DNC) members would gather to vote on a replacement. DNC spokesman Mark Paustenbach says there currently are 445 committee members – a number that changes over time and is guided by the group’s bylaws, which give membership to specific officeholders and party leaders and hold 200 spots for selection by states, along with an optional 75 slots DNC members can choose to fill. But the party rules for replacing a presidential nominee merely specify that a majority of members must be present at a special meeting called by the committee chairman. The meeting would follow procedures set by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and proxy voting would not be allowed. But DNC member Connie Johnson, a former Oklahoma state senator who supported Bernie Sanders, says it would be most appropriate for the DNC to give the nomination to the runner-up if Clinton were to die or drop out before the election. Johnson writes in an email: “I believe that’s why Sen. Sanders stayed in the contest. As to whether the party would adopt what would appear to be a common sense solution in the event of [Clinton] no longer being able to serve – that would remain to be seen. There was so much vitriol aimed at Sen. Sanders and his supporters by [Clinton supporters] that they would likely want ‘anybody but Bernie’ in order to save face and maintain control.”
  • In the case of the Republican party, Republican National Committee (RNC) rules potentially allow for greater democratic input, but don’t require it. If a vacancy emerges on the ticket, the 168-member RNC would decide whether to select a replacement on its own or “reconvene the national convention,” which featured 2,472 voting delegates, that met over the summer. If RNC members make the choice themselves, the three members representing each state, territory and the nation’s capital – a committeeman, committeewoman and the local party chairman – would jointly have “the same number of votes as said state was entitled to cast at the national convention.” RNC rules allow for state delegations to split their vote and for members to vote by proxy.

According to John Fortier, though not legally required, parties may decide on an easy fix and encourage electors to support their existing vice presidential nominee. A party legally could pick someone else, but a desire for legitimacy in the eyes of the public may force its hand.

Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News and an expert on presidential election history, says state election officials likely would be compelled to accept a major party’s request to swap candidates, citing precedent set in 1972 when states allowed Democrats to replace vice presidential nominee Thomas Eagleton, who was revealed to be a shock therapy patient, with Sargent Shriver. In 1972, every state but South Dakota also allowed the prominent 1980 independent candidate John Anderson to swap his vice presidential candidate Milton Eisenhower for former Wisconsin Gov. Patrick Lucey.

The Role of the Electoral College

In the end, whatever the decision made by the DNC or the RNC, it is up to the Electoral College. 

If the DNC or the RNC were to select an unpalatable pick, it’s possible many of the Electoral College could bolt. Ohio State University law professor Edward Foley explains that “the Supreme Court has never ruled that electors can be forced to obey their pledge” to vote for a particular presidential candidate, leaving open the door for mass defections or, in the event of a post-election candidate death, an en masse vote flip.

With more than two centuries of history, the U.S. does have some examples of candidate deaths, though none with a catastrophic impact:

  • In 1872, presidential candidate Horace Greeley died about 3 weeks after winning about 44% of the popular vote as a Liberal Republican supported by Democrats against incumbent Republican Ulysses S. Grant. Presidential electors chose between various alternatives, but because Greeley had lost, his death did not sway the election’s outcome.

H/t FOTM‘s Bongiornoc


WTF: If elected president, Trump won’t serve?

In a recent interview, when Donald Trump was asked by the New York Times if he would actually serve should he beat Hillary and is elected President, Trump refused to give a definitive answer.

The New York Times did not actually give us the transcript of the interview. Below is Jason Horowitz’ article, “Would Donald Trump Quit if He Wins the election? He Doesn’t Rule it Out,” in The New York Times of July 8, 2016, in its entirety:

The traditional goal of a presidential nominee is to win the presidency and then serve as president.

Donald J. Trump is not a traditional candidate for president.

Presented in a recent interview with a scenario, floating around the political ether, in which the presumptive Republican nominee proves all the naysayers wrong, beats Hillary Clinton and wins the presidency, only to forgo the office as the ultimate walk-off winner, Mr. Trump flashed a mischievous smile.

“I’ll let you know how I feel about it after it happens,” he said minutes before leaving his Trump Tower office to fly to a campaign rally in New Hampshire.

It is, of course, entirely possible that Mr. Trump is playing coy to earn more news coverage. But the notion of the intensely competitive Mr. Trump’s being more interested in winning the presidency than serving as president is not exactly a foreign concept to close observers of this presidential race.

Early in the contest, his rivals, Republican operatives and many reporters questioned the seriousness of his candidacy. His knack for creating controversy out of thin air (this week’s edition: the Star of David Twitter post) and his inclination toward self-destructive comments did not instill confidence in a political culture that values on-message discipline in its candidates.

Those doubts dissipated after Mr. Trump vanquished his Republican opponents and locked up the nomination.

“I’ve actually done very well,” Mr. Trump said. “We beat 18 people, right?”

But as the race has turned toward the general election and a majority of polls have shown Mr. Trump trailing Mrs. Clinton, speculation has again crept into political conversations in Washington, New York and elsewhere that Mr. Trump will seek an exit strategy before the election to avoid a humiliating loss.

Told of Mr. Trump’s noncommittal comment, Stuart Stevens, a senior adviser to Mitt Romney in 2012 who has become one of Mr. Trump’s most vocal critics, said that Mr. Trump was “a con man who is shocked his con hasn’t been called” and that he was looking for an emergency exit.

“He has no sense of how to govern,” Mr. Stevens said. “He can’t even put together a campaign.” [Really, Stuart Stevens? Trump managed to “put together a campaign” that defeated all his GOP rivals in primary elections. I call that a successful campaign! What would you call it? -Dr. Eowyn]

Even Mr. Trump’s supporters acknowledge that his past campaigns had the air of a vanity tour. That impression lingers. A recent Trump news release promising “a speech regarding the election” prompted many reporters and political fortunetellers to predict a declaration of his departure. But just the fact that a routine news release prompted paroxysms of conjecture throughout the political universe suggested that, as Mr. Trump might say, “there’s something going on.”

Mr. Trump’s campaign and his supporters dismiss the talk as the fantasizing of frightened liberals or frustrated establishment figures.

“He’s not going to pull out,” said Thomas Barrack Jr., a financier and real estate investor who is a close friend of Mr. Trump’s. He compared Mr. Trump’s candidacy to an innovative start-up company: “You never see disruption when it’s happening.”

In Mr. Trump’s case, the disruption is everywhere. Last fall, he said in television interviews that if his standing collapsed in the Republican primary polls, he could very well return to his business. In mid-June, amid an onslaught of negative news coverage, he joked to a crowd that he would consider leaving the race for $5 billion.
On the off chance he actually is planning to back out, what would happen?

Alexander Keyssar, a historian at Harvard who is working on a book about the Electoral College, said the process of succession would depend on “the precise moment at which he said, ‘Nah, never mind.’”

The party representatives who make up the Electoral College would suddenly have real power rather than a rubber stamp. If Mr. Trump bowed out after winning on Nov. 8 but before the electors met in each state to cast their ballots on Dec. 19, then the electors could have the opportunity to vote for another candidate, Professor Keyssar said.

A majority of the 538 electors would be Republicans, but they might not agree on the best alternative candidate. If no one won a majority of the electors, the contest between the top three vote-getters — one of whom would presumably be Mrs. Clinton — would go to the House of Representatives, where each state would be given one vote, while the Senate would select the vice president. House Republicans hold 33 states to the Democrats’ 14, with three evenly split. It is unclear whether the vote would take place before or after newly elected representatives were seated.

It is also unclear what would happen, Professor Keyssar said, if Mr. Trump bid adieu after the electoral votes were cast but before they were officially counted, per the 12th Amendment, by the president of the Senate before a joint session of Congress in January. And if Mr. Trump left after the votes were counted in Congress but before he was sworn in on Jan. 20, Professor Keyssar said the closest guidance would probably come from Section Three of the 20th Amendment: “If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the president, the president-elect shall have died, the vice president-elect shall become president.”

“Nothing like this has ever happened,” Professor Keyssar said.

And nothing like it will this year, Mr. Trump’s supporters say.

“It’s going to be too late by then,” Roger Stone, Mr. Trump’s longtime political adviser, said of the go-out-on-top theory. “If he got elected president, he’d certainly serve. I’m fairly certain about that. You think he’d resign? I don’t see that happening. There is only one star in the Donald Trump show, and that’s Donald Trump.”

Russell Verney, a former top strategist for Ross Perot, the Texas billionaire who abruptly pulled out of the 1992 election, only to re-enter and win 19 percent of the vote, said that outsider candidates were more vulnerable to questions about their resolve.

“It never would be a subject raised with Romney and others, because the presidency is the ultimate goal of their entire professional career,” said Mr. Verney, who conferred with Mr. Trump during his exploration of a presidential run in 2000, during which, he said, Mr. Trump expressed reservations about selling his casinos to fund his campaign. “Donald Trump has not worked toward being president every day of his professional career.”

Mr. Trump’s supporters point out that he has begun adopting the more traditional trappings of a presidential campaign: a fund-raising operation, policy ideas, prepared speeches.

“This is silly,” said Sean Spicer, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, which has tried hard to make the Trump campaign more professional. “He’s in it to win it.”

But the only person who could truly put any doubts to rest seemed instead to relish the idea of keeping everyone guessing, concluding the recent conversation with a you’re-on-to-something grin and handshake across his cluttered desk.

“We’ll do plenty of stories,” Mr. Trump promised enigmatically. “O.K.?”

So what do you think?

Sound off in our poll below:


GOP proving Alex Jones to be true

We have all been warned by conspiracy theorists of the existence of a “bankster ruling elite.” This story in Breitbart gives credence our suspicions. The following Breitbart article is absolutely chilling. ~ TD 


Breitbart: How the GOP Insiders Plan to Steal the Nod From Trump

by Roger Stone and Ed Martin – 1 Mar 2016

“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” – Eric Hoffer

Despite a growing string of victories in the Republican primaries ,the DC-Wall Street cabal that has dominated the GOP since 1988 has no intention of letting the billionaire real estate mogul be nominated. None other than Karl Rove has insisted the stop-Trump effort is not too late and can succeed.

A new superPAC has dumped $10 million dollars into blistering negative TV ads against Trump in the last three days. The Koch brothers and their associates deny funding the effort but they denials are questionable at best. The New York Times reported Sunday that the Rubio and Kasich campaigns are now openly planning on a ‘brokered convention” to stop Trump in the back rooms in Cleveland. The New York Daily News reported that Barbara Bush has vowed revenge against Trump for ending the “low energy” campaign of her son Jeb, the anointed one and that the Bush clan is all-in in the effort to stop Trump. The News reported that Jeb may transfer the $25 to $30 million in SuperPAC funds he has left to an anti-Trump effort…

And it gets much worse! Read the whole BLOCKBUSTER article at


University’s mock election predicts Bernie Sanders will be next president

For some years now, Western Illinois University (WIU) has conducted mock presidential elections. Using that simulation, the university claims to have accurately predicted the outcomes of the 2007 and 2011 presidential elections.

According to a press release from the university, from October 20 to November 2, 2015, WIU conducted the largest and most elaborate mock presidential simulation in the U.S., involving thousands of its students, who took part in simulations of the Iowa Caucuses, other state primaries, the Democratic and Republican parties’ nominating conventions, and the Electoral College vote.

WIU mock presidential election

Through those simulations, the participating students determined primary winners and the winning presidential ticket.

And the result?

According to WIU’s third Mock Presidential Election (MPE), the Democratic ticket of Bernie Sanders (president) and Martin O’Malley (vice president) won.

Bernie Sanders is a declared Socialist who only changed his party ID to Democrat in order to run for the 2016 presidency.

Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley

Here’s the breakdown:

  • Democratic Party’s Sanders/O’Malley won more than 400 Electoral College votes and 741 popular votes.
  • Republican Party’s Jeb Bush (president)/Marco Rubio (vice president) got 114 electoral votes and 577 popular votes.
  • Libertarian Party’s Lex Green (president)/Rand Paul (VP) won 159 popular votes.
  • Green Party’s Jill Stein(president)/Peter Schwartzman (VP) got 50 popular votes. See for more information.)

The university’s Centennial Honors College Director Richard Hardy said that “students from every college at Western [Illinois University] and virtually every school and department on campus participated by helping to organize the MPE and attending the sessions.”

The Mock Presidential Election simulation process had been developed by Hardy and John Hemingway, associate professor of Recreation, Park and Tourism Administration, when they were senior teaching assistants for American Government classes at the University of Iowa in the mid-1970s. In 2006, Hardy and Hemingway reconnected at WIU and began organizing the campus-wide Mock Presidential Election events.

For more information, see, or contact Hardy at (309) 298-2228 or

If WIU’s simulation is correct, I can tell you why:

  1. Millions of registered Republicans did not vote because GOP elites finagled to have Jeb Bush, who has been at the bottom of every opinion poll, be the party’s nominee.
  2. Even more millions of Americans did not vote because they couldn’t vote for Donald Trump. Flawed as he is, Trump is the only candidate who is articulating the frustrations and aspirations of many.

H/t FOTM’s MomOfIV


City Officials Order Black Couple to Perform KKK Wedding

Now All I can say is this is a beautiful thing. In the “Immortal” words of That trailblazer of Racial Harmony , Rodney King…

Can’t We All Get Along?


Posted on October 20, 2014 by

A black couple that owns a wedding chapel has been offering their facility to couples for years. People from around the country visit the charming chapel set in a beautiful wilderness area to get hitched.

But a few months ago, a couple came in wanting to do a KKK-themed wedding. At first, the couple, Roy and Esther Black, thought it was a joke, something from a David Chappelle comedy routine. They wondered where the hidden cameras were.

To their surprise and shock, however, they found out that the couple was serious. They wanted to dress in their KKK garb and have the Blacks perform the ceremony. The best man and maid of honor would also be dressed in KKK attire but, like the couple, without hoods.

Very Charming Chapel.

Very Charming Chapel.

How Dare you discriminate against me?

How Dare you discriminate against me?

As nicely as they could, the Blacks said they couldn’t do it. They were opposed to the beliefs of the KKK. They suggested that if they really wanted a KKK-themed wedding that they should go elsewhere.

The couple was irate and decided to file an anti-discrimination lawsuit against the Blacks.

“The chapel was open to the public,” Blake Atkinson told a reporter for KLKA TV, “and since the chapel is advertised for weddings, the Blacks should be forced to perform our wedding. Public accommodation laws demand it”

“City officials told the Blacks, both ordained ministers who run The Chapel in the Pines, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its ‘non-discrimination’ ordinance requires the Blacks to perform wedding ceremonies for anybody that asks no matter what their beliefs are regarding the people who are asking to be married.”

Civil rights groups around the country are outraged over the decision of city officials. How is it possible for a couple like the Blacks to be forced to perform a wedding for a couple whose lifestyle and belief system they abhor?

Good question. The same can be asked of people who oppose same-sex marriage.

The above story is fictional but based on a true account related to same-sex marriage.

It is designed to show the absurdity of new laws being passed and enforced to mandate that the owners of places like the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur D’Alene, Idaho, perform weddings for same-sex couples or go to jail or face stiff fines.

Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.

“‘The city somehow expects ordained pastors to flip a switch and turn off all faithfulness to their God and their vows,’ explained ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. ‘The U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state law clearly stand against that. The city cannot mandate across-the-board conformity to its interpretation of a city ordinance in utter disregard for the guaranteed freedoms Americans treasure in our society.’”

What’s next? How will the tyranny be expanded? Look what’s happening in Houston, Texas. If the government can force the Knapps to go against their beliefs, then they can force others to do the same.

Homosexuals and the civil officials of Coeur d’Alene will argue that there’s no law protecting the KKK, and that’s the point. If the government can make up laws protecting one class, it can make laws to protect any class or any belief or nay group and make us pay dearly for any opposition.