Indiana – Home of the Puritan Bigots

So Governor Pence of Indiana signed the bill into law that permits prejudice against gays. Of course this law overrides other local ordinances that prohibit discrimination against customers based on their sexual orientation. But I’m sure Big Daddy Pence knows what’s best for all those good folks in Indiana. He will protect them from all those LGBT’s that are just waiting to pounce on Indiana’s puritanical  husbands, wives, and children.

However, he did miss a very important step in the new pro-prejudice law – how do we identify them as LGBT?  So, he will obviously need to amend the law and add that all LGBT’s living in Indiana will have to get a “666” tattoo on their forehead for identification purposes. Those LGBT’s just visiting or traveling through Indiana can go to the nearest Police station and get a temporary “666 stamp” on their forehead. Oh, and then he would need to ban any type of hats or scarves that might hide the tattoo. Oh, and then there would have to be an amendment defining the punishment for not identifying themselves as LGBT.  You get the point.

Thank you Governor Pence for moving Indiana back to the 1950’s, or possibly the 1300’s with this disgusting new law of yours. I lived in Indiana for a few years and I know this is not the voice of the people speaking. This is voice of a few powerful bigots that deserve a big red tattoo on their forehead stating “BIGOT.”


10 Things To Know Before You Eat Your Next Chicken

We have all seen or heard already about all the bad things that are used to grow beef and the downside to eating it.  My family stopped eating red meat several years ago, with the exception of a What-a-Burger every now and then.  However, we are avid chicken eaters. This re-post of an article from will open your eyes to the new world of Factory Farms that feed Americans 9 billion chickens a year.



What?! But you’ve seen “cage-free” plenty of times! Google it. The only chickens raised in cages in the U.S. are the ones that lay eggs. When you see the words “cage-free” on a label it doesn’t actually mean anything. Companies put it there, but really, none of the chickens were ever in a cage.


Craig’s barn is a sea of 30,000 birds filled with litter, feces and dusty feathers. When the chicks are fully grown, they have a space equivalent to a sheet of paper to walk around. The burning smell of ammonia is very common.

Chickens in factory farmRead this article and be prepared to think twice when buying your next chicken at the store.

Continue reading >>>


Where Our Food Comes From – Sustainable Farms Versus Industrial Factory Farms

Sustainable agriculture takes many forms, but at its core is a rejection of the industrial approach to food production developed during the 20th century.

Unfortunately, most food produced in the U.S. is no longer grown or raised on sustainable farms. During the mid-1900s, U.S. agriculture began to industrialize, becoming increasingly mechanized and reliant upon resource-intensive inputs like synthetic fertilizers and chemical pesticides. Over time, farms became larger, more specialized, and centralized, creating a process of extreme consolidation that drove many small farms out of business, and ultimately resulted in large factory farms and a food market controlled by a handful of powerful corporations.

Industrial Crops.  Today, industrial crops are produced on huge monoculture crop farms, which rely extensively on chemical pesticides, synthetic fertilizers and genetically modified crop varieties. This system has made food abundant and affordable, however, the ecological and social price has been steep. These practices deplete and degrade soil, reduce biodiversity, and generate air and water pollutants that contaminate the environment and threaten the health of farm workers, neighbors, and consumers.

Sustainable Crops.  Food production should never come at the expense of human health. Since sustainable crop farms avoid hazardous pesticides, they’re able to grow fruits and vegetables that are safer for consumers, workers, and surrounding communities.

Industrial Livestock Production.  The majority of meat, eggs, and dairy products are now produced on enormous industrial livestock facilities. Also known as factory farms or CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations), these facilities confine thousands (and, in some cases, hundreds of thousands) of animals in cramped conditions without access to the outdoors. In addition to compromising animal welfare, factory farms generate a huge amount of waste, which pollutes air, water, and soil, degrading the natural environment and threatening public health.

Please watch this video to learn more about Industrial Livestock Production:


Since 2003, The Meatrix has educated over 30 million consumers about the problems caused by factory farms. Since then, interest in sustainable food has grown – but so have the number of factory farms.

Sustainable Livestock Production.  Sustainable livestock farmers and ranchers raise animals without dangerous practices like use of non-therapeutic antibiotics or arsenic-based growth promoters. Through careful, responsible management of livestock waste, sustainable farmers also protect humans from exposure to pathogens, toxins, and other hazardous pollutants.

Sustainable farmers and ranchers treat animals with care and respect, implementing livestock husbandry practices that protect animals’ health and wellbeing. By raising livestock on pasture, these farmers enable their animals to move freely, engage in instinctive behaviors, consume a natural diet, and avoid the stress and illness associated with confinement.

A Sustainable Food Future.  Although industrial agriculture currently dominates the U.S. food system, public awareness of the problems caused by this model has grown rapidly, building extensive support for sustainable agriculture, creating a robust market for sustainable foods, and inspiring formidable demand for agricultural policy and regulatory reform.

Please join the cause for a better food system! Join the Revolution – Take action and get the facts at 

Republican’s Obsession With Presidential Religions

As I was reading about how radio host Tim Farley, of “The Morning Briefing with Tim Farley” radio program, immediately cut off Retired Air Force Colonel Dick Brauer, Jr. after he started spewing the wingnut lie about how Obama is a Muslim, I just couldn’t help myself as I blurted out “it’s about damn time.” Someone finally took the microphone away and said he wasn’t going to let him start spouting his untruths.

The Republican’s obsession with trying to convince the American public that President Obama is a Muslim, is just nuts. The man has been elected president twice and not running for the presidency again. Why does it matter anyway.

For the first two hundred years of this country, most of our presidents worked diligently to keep their religious lives private and to keep some sort of wall between their religion and their Presidency. Two of our most famous Presidents, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, were unaffiliated with any religion.

Even though he is considered one of our greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln probably would not be nominated, much less elected today because he never joined a church, never publicly confessed a creed, nor publicly uttered belief in God’s endorsement of his policies.

Andrew Jackson conscientiously refused to allow his religion to be a part of his office. Jackson was called on by members of Congress and influential religious leaders to call for a national day of prayer and fasting in response to a cholera epidemic. Jackson refused, stating that to do so would be to transcend “those limits which are prescribed by the Constitution for the President,” and he feared that this religious encroachment could “disturb the security which religion now enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government.”

So, during my lifetime I have witnessed the Republicans hatred for President Obama because he might be a Muslim (and he is black); their animosity towards John F. Kennedy because he was a Catholic; and their loathing of Jimmy Carter who was a devout Southern Baptist Christian. Yet, they were more than willing to run Mitt Romney for president and he was a Mormon (nothing bad, just not one of their kind).

The Republicans were so fixated on John Kennedy’s Catholicism and the possibility that his religion (i.e. Pope) may influence his presidential decisions, they made it a national religious issue. To mitigate this Republican obsession with his Catholicism, on September 12, 1960, Kennedy delivered the speech of his political career in Houston, Texas, before a crowd of several hundred mostly Protestant ministers. Kennedy was addressing what he referred to as “the so-called religious issue.” As Kennedy saw it, the nation was facing a raft of issues from the threat of Soviet communism to hunger and despair at home. “These are,” he argued, “the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues—for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barrier.” Nonetheless, JFK knew he had to address the question of his Catholicism. Kennedy famously declared, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the president—-should he be Catholic—how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote,” and he concluded, “I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me.” Earlier in his career in Congress, JFK once quipped that in Boston they learned their politics at home and their religion from Rome. As JFK put it, “I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.”

Now that was a great speech on keeping church and state separate.

Fast forward to today and we see that we have now done a 180º degree flip and the Republicans want exactly the opposite of what John Kennedy said. Now it is all about church influencing and guiding state policies and ministers telling their parishioners for whom they should vote. Do I see a Supreme Court decision in the future stating that keeping church and state separate is unconstitutional?

That is crazy you say. Think about it. Think about how politicized and radical the evangelicals have become in the last twenty years.  Maybe not so crazy.